Rape One Of The Most Barbaric Crimes Against Woman’s Holy Body & Soul Of Society: Delhi HC
The Calcutta High Court’s observation regarding “Absence of Injuries on Victim’s Body Will Not Render Commission of Offence Improbable”,
1. Context
In many criminal trials (especially sexual offences, assault, or even murder), the defence often argues that since there are no external injuries on the victim’s body, the alleged offence could not have been committed.
The Calcutta High Court clarified that lack of visible physical injuries does not automatically mean that the offence did not occur.
2. Legal Principle
Absence of injuries ≠ Absence of offence.
The Court stressed that every victim reacts differently to violence, and some offences (like sexual assault) may be committed without leaving external marks.
Medical evidence is only corroborative; it cannot override direct, credible testimony of the victim.
3. Case Law Reference (Calcutta HC)
In a recent case before the Calcutta High Court, the accused challenged his conviction on the ground that the victim’s medical examination showed no injuries on her body.
The Court held:
Merely because no injuries were found on the victim, the commission of the offence does not become improbable.
The testimony of the victim, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to convict the accused.
Medical evidence must be read in harmony with ocular evidence (witness testimony).
4. Supporting Supreme Court Judgments
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
The Supreme Court held that the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix does not falsify the allegation of rape.
Victims may not resist strongly out of fear, shock, or threat.
State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal (2011)
Court reiterated that lack of injuries is not a decisive factor.
What matters is whether the victim’s testimony inspires confidence.
Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998)
Held that even if medical evidence does not show signs of rape, the conviction can be based on reliable testimony of the prosecutrix.
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983)
The Court emphasized that a victim of sexual offence is not an accomplice; her evidence does not require corroboration unless there are compelling reasons.
5. Significance of Calcutta HC Observation
Reinforces the idea that victim testimony is central in sexual offence cases.
Protects victims from false acquittals merely because of medical reports showing no external injuries.
Aligns with the principle that justice must not be denied because of technicalities in medical examination.
6. Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court clarified that:
Absence of injuries on a victim’s body cannot make the commission of an offence improbable.
Medical evidence is advisory and corroborative, not conclusive.
If the victim’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable, it is sufficient for conviction.
✅ In short: Courts cannot dismiss a victim’s testimony simply because medical examination shows no injuries. The truthfulness of the victim’s statement is more important than absence of physical marks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments