Sole Testimony of a Sexual-Offence Survivor

A rape conviction may rest on the survivor's sole testimony when the court finds it credible, reliable and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Corroboration is not a legal prerequisite, but the testimony must be assessed carefully like any other substantive evidence.

The governing legal rule

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court affirmed that a survivor is not an accomplice and her evidence does not inherently require corroboration.

• The court may convict on sole testimony if it inspires confidence and proves every essential ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
• Insisting on corroboration in every case would wrongly treat the survivor's testimony as inherently suspect.

How the court assesses reliability

The court considers the testimony as a whole rather than demanding mechanical consistency on every detail.

• The account should be coherent on material particulars, withstand cross-examination and accord with the overall probabilities of the case.
• Minor discrepancies or ordinary variations in recollection do not discredit an otherwise trustworthy account.
• Delay in reporting, absence of injuries or lack of medical corroboration is not automatically fatal; each must be evaluated in context.
• Where material contradictions, inherent improbabilities or other serious infirmities make implicit reliance unsafe, the court may seek independent corroboration as a rule of prudence.

Consent and evidentiary safeguards

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, previous sexual experience or general character cannot be used to prove consent in the specified sexual-offence prosecutions.

• In specified rape prosecutions, once the statutory foundational facts are proved and the survivor states in court that she did not consent, the law provides a presumption of absence of consent.
• These safeguards do not remove the prosecution's obligation to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt or the accused's right to a fair trial.