In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court ruled that it is “ridiculous” to expect physical injuries on a rape survivor who was mentally, psychologically, and physically overpowered. The Court emphasized that even if a woman is accustomed to sexual activity, she can still be raped.
The division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Sandeep Jain passed this ruling while overturning the acquittal of a man accused of raping an 18-year-old woman in 2016. Justice Jain authored a separate but concurring opinion.
Read also: Allahabad High Court: Accused on Bail Has No Right to Foreign Travel for Weddings or Pleasure Trips
The High Court disagreed with the trial court’s decision that dismissed the case citing previous enmity between the victim's family and the accused, delay in filing the FIR, and a lack of medical evidence supporting rape.
“The deposition of the victim was enough for conviction since her testimony stands on the same footing as an injured witness. Unless her statement raised reasonable doubt, the only conclusion possible was that of the accused’s guilt,” the Court stated.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, on September 11, 2016, the victim (‘X’) was with her fiancé (‘S’) and younger brother (‘R’) in her apartment when the accused entered forcibly with a firearm. He made ‘X’ and ‘S’ undress, filmed them naked, and then forced ‘S’ to leave. The accused then raped the victim despite her resistance. He later threatened to throw her off the third floor if she didn’t comply with him. He took her elsewhere and left her in a disoriented state. She later returned and informed her family.
The Court found that the victim’s narration remained consistent from the FIR to her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and throughout the trial.
“She was cross-examined extensively, yet her testimony remained firm. Minor discrepancies were present but not serious enough to affect her credibility,” the Court said.
The trial court had earlier dismissed the case, partly due to alleged disputes between the victim’s family and the accused. However, the High Court found this unconvincing.
“The nature of the quarrel wasn’t specified nor proven. No details on date, time, or nature were provided. Alleging a heinous crime like rape cannot be brushed aside simply because of an unproven personal dispute,” the Court observed.
Addressing the lack of injuries, the Court stated:
“Once it is shown that the survivor was mentally and physically overpowered, injuries are not mandatory proof. It is absurd to expect external or internal injuries in every rape case.”
The Court also dismissed the argument about the absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal smear and the survivor’s prior sexual history:
“Even if she was used to sexual intercourse, rape can still occur. Resistance was neutralized when her 12-year-old brother was assaulted and her fiancé was forced out at gunpoint before the rape took place.”
The Court found the accused guilty under Sections 376 (rape), 452 (house trespass), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and sentenced him to 7 years of imprisonment — the minimum term under Section 376 IPC in 2016.
However, since the accused had already served 6 years, 9 months, and 11 days in jail, the Court directed the Jail Superintendent, Etawah, to calculate the total sentence served (including remission) and inform the accused via the trial court within 30 days.
The accused, currently out on bail, must surrender by July 30 if any sentence remains to be served.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Senior Advocate VP Srivastava assisted by Advocate Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party: AGA LD Rajbhar
Case title – State of U.P. vs. Pushpendra Alias Gabbar S/O Brahamdutt 2025
