The Amicus Curiae in the matter pointed out that the survivor had not mentioned any penetration as was corroborated by the medical officer witness, and thus prayed for the appellant’s acquittal.
Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of the offence is corroborated by a neighbour-witness as well, adding that a lack of injury cannot be grounds to disbelieve the prosecution’s case.
On this, the Bench ruled,
“Although absence of injuries or non-rupture of hymen is not a sine qua non to prove the offence of rape, in the factual matrix of the case where the victim herself states that the appellant attempted to rape her absence of injuries in her private parts corroborate the conclusion that the case was one of attempt to commit rape.“
Source: Barandbench
