Absence Of Injuries On Victim's Body Will Not Render Commission Of Offence Improbable: Calcutta HC Upholds Conviction Of Man For Raping 7 Yr Old Girl

The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the conviction of a man for raping a 7 year old girl by observing that mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape and that presence of injuries on the body of the victim is not necessary. 

A Bench comprising Justices Bivas Pattanayak and Joymalya Bagchi observed, 

"It has also been strenuously argued that the allegation of rape on a seven year old minor is improbable as no injuries were found on the body of the victim including her private parts. Her hymen was intact. It is trite law mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape. It is not necessary that penetration must be of such nature that it would cause injuries or rupture the hymen..In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is clear that there was a slight penetration into the private parts of the victim, which though sufficient to constitute rape, did not result in rupture of hymen."

Thus, the Bench dismissed the contention of the appellant that allegation of forcible rape on the minor victim is improbable just because there were no injuries found on the private parts of the victim.

"Thus, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case has fully been proved beyond doubt and cannot be rendered improbable due to absence of injuries being noted on the body of the victim", the Court opined further. 

Background 

The instant appeal had been preferred against the judgment passed by the concerned Sessions Court convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) (rape) of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer 2 rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/. In default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months more with a further direction that if the fine amount is recovered, 50% of the same shall be paid to the victim.

On April 14, 2013, the mother of the minor victim had gone out for work as a domestic help leaving behind her minor daughter aged around 7 years and her one year old son at home. Taking advantage of her absence, the appellant, who is a neighbour, came into the house and raped the minor girl. He had asked the minor to remove her inner garments on the lure of giving her ten rupees. Thereafter, around 2:30 pm when the mother of the victim returned from work, she found the appellant coming out of her house wearing a gamchha. 

Upon entering the house she found her minor daughter crying and subsequently  the minor victim had disclosed that the appellant had raped her. Thereafter, a police complaint had been registered against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. 

Observations 

Upon perusal of the rival submissions, the Court noted that the evidence of the minor victim had been corroborated by her mother and other local witnesses that the appellant had been seen coming out of the residence of the victim bare-bodied and wearing only a gamchha. 

The Court further noted that evidence of a rape victim mist be treated on par with an injured witness. It was further observed that the evidence of the minor victim is reliable and inspires confidence and that there exists no reason as to why the victim would falsely implicate the appellant. 

Dismissing the contention that rape is improbable as no injuries were found on the body of the victim including her private parts, the Court underscored, 

"Judged from this background it is clear that the victim was a helpless minor girl and unable to resist the sudden attack by the appellant who was a full grown person. Moreover, as soon as the appellant had penetrated his penis into the victim, her mother arrived and he left the spot."

Thus, the Court held that the prosecution case has fully been proved beyond doubt and cannot be rendered improbable due to absence of injuries being noted on the body of the victim. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 

Advocate Karabi Roy represented the appellant. Advocate Arani Bhattacharyya was the amicus curiae. The State has been represented by advocates Parthapratim Das and Manasi Roy.

Case Title: Manick Sardar v. State of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 46

Click Here To Read/Download Order