Background:

In the present case, Birka Shiva was convicted for offences arising out of allegations of sexual assault made by the prosecutrix, whose testimony formed the primary basis for the prosecution’s case. The trial court found the accused guilty based on the victim’s credible and consistent account, despite the absence of corroborative evidence. On appeal, the Telangana High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the testimony of a victim in such cases need not be corroborated if it is reliable and trustworthy. Aggrieved by this, Birka Shiva filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court challenging the conviction. The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and legal principles regarding the credibility of victim testimony in sexual offence cases, dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and reinforcing the principle that the sole testimony of a victim can sustain a conviction when found truthful.

Issues

1. Whether the conviction of the accused could be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix in a sexual offence case?

2. Does the absence of corroborative evidence automatically lead to acquittal if the victim’s testimony is found credible and trustworthy?

3. What is the legal standard for assessing the reliability of victim testimony in sexual offence cases?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The Court emphasized that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be carefully scrutinized, but if found to be truthful, trustworthy, and consistent, it forms a sufficient basis for conviction even without corroboration.
• • The Court reiterated the settled legal position that there is no legal rule mandating corroboration of the victim’s testimony in sexual offence cases.
• • While the Court stressed the need to be cautious, it rejected the outdated notion that the victim’s testimony is inherently suspicious or unreliable merely because it is uncorroborated.
• • The Court observed that the test is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence on record, including the testimony of the prosecutrix.
• • The Court underlined the judiciary’s duty to balance the rights of the accused with the protection of victims, ensuring that truth and justice prevail over technicalities.

Decision:

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court and affirmed by the Telangana High Court.

• • The Court held that the uncorroborated but credible and consistent testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to prove the guilt of Birka Shiva beyond reasonable doubt.
• • Consequently, the absence of corroborative evidence did not warrant acquittal.
• • The conviction was maintained on the basis that the victim’s truthful testimony formed a reliable foundation for the judgment, in line with established legal principles relating to sexual offence cases.

Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the decision of the lower courts was affirmed.

Why this case matters:

• • The judgment reinforces a crucial principle in criminal law regarding sexual offences- that the sole, credible testimony of a victim is enough to secure a conviction, even without corroboration.
• • It reaffirms that courts should not mechanically insist on corroborative evidence, which is often hard to produce in sexual offence cases, to avoid unjust acquittals.
• • It upholds the principle that conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, but allows that proof to rest on reliable victim testimony rather than additional technical evidence.
• • The judgment helps dispel outdated stereotypes that victim testimony is inherently doubtful or suspicious in such cases.

Laws related thereto:

Under BNS:

• Section 63 & 64: Define the offence of rape and prescribe punishment.

Under BSA:

• Section 139: Presumption as to absence of consent in certain cases.

• Section 158 & 160: Evidence relating to character of the victim and accused.

• Section 120: Presumption as to absence of consent in cases of sexual assault.

Under BNSS:

• Section 193: Police report and investigation process.

• Section 183: Recording of statements before magistrate.

• Section 416: Protection of victims and guidelines for trial (amended and expanded over time).

Judicial Precedents:

• State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996): The Supreme Court held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible and trustworthy, can sustain a conviction in a rape case. The Court emphasized that no rule of law mandates corroboration of the victim’s testimony.

• Tukaram S. Dighole vs. State of Maharashtra (2010): This judgment reaffirmed that courts should focus on the reliability and credibility of the victim’s testimony. It stressed that lack of corroboration does not automatically lead to acquittal if the victim’s evidence is trustworthy.

• Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2021): The Court reiterated that the victim’s testimony in sexual offence cases is sufficient on its own. Courts should not insist on corroboration or treat victim testimony with skepticism simply because the offence is sexual in nature.

• Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Haryana (2013): The Court held that a victim’s testimony deserves to be given due weightage and that the absence of medical or other corroborative evidence is not fatal.