Criminal appeals against conviction in sexual offence cases often turn on a single question: does the testimony of the prosecutrix, tested against the record, inspire confidence? In Mahender Rathore v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 844/2017, decided on 5 August 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against a conviction under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, upholding a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The judgment works through the standard battery of defence arguments — omissions in earlier statements, absence of injuries, defects in the site plan, an alibi built on call records — and explains why none of them dislodged the core of the prosecution case.
The prosecution case
The incident alleged dated back to 23 February 2012, when, according to the prosecutrix, the appellant committed rape upon her at knifepoint in her rented room in Haiderpur, Delhi, and threatened to kill her if she spoke of it. She stated that she approached the police the same evening, but no action followed. Months later she submitted a written complaint to senior officers, and thereafter filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An FIR was then registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. The trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Rohini ended in conviction under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, with rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of ₹50,000 for the offence of rape, and three years with fine for criminal intimidation, the sentences running concurrently.
The defence arguments and how they fared
Omissions and improvements
The defence pointed to differences between the earlier statements of the prosecutrix and her deposition in court. The Court held that omissions on peripheral details, which do not touch the core allegation, cannot demolish testimony that is otherwise credible and consistent on the substance of the incident.
No injury marks
Much was made of the absence of marks on the neck despite the allegation of a knife held to it. The Court noted that the medical examination came about seven months after the incident; it could not possibly establish the presence or absence of injuries at the time of the occurrence.
The site plan
The defence relied on the site plan to dispute the layout described by the prosecutrix. The Court gave the document limited weight, observing that it had been prepared by the investigating officer on the basis of enquiry rather than at the instance of the witnesses whose account it was supposed to test.
Alibi on call records
Call detail records were pressed to show the appellant was elsewhere. The plea failed at the threshold of proof: it was never established who was actually using the mobile number at the relevant time, and the records were not explained or connected through proper evidence.
The Court also noticed that the defence version itself had shifted between stages of the case — a monetary dispute was set up in one breath and a different narrative in another — which further weakened the challenge to the prosecution evidence. Weighing the deposition of the prosecutrix against these attacks, the Court found the core of her account unshaken and dismissed the appeal as without merit.
The legal framework the judgment applies
| Question | Approach of the courts |
|---|---|
| Delay in registration of the FIR | Delay is examined with sensitivity in sexual offence cases. Where the victim first approached the police without result and then pursued the complaint route through the Magistrate, the delay is explained by the record itself. |
| Minor omissions in earlier statements | Only contradictions that go to the root of the matter are treated as material. Peripheral variations are regarded as natural, not as signs of falsehood. |
| Medical evidence | Medical evidence is corroborative. Its silence, particularly after a long interval, does not override a credible ocular account. |
| Alibi | The accused must establish the plea by cogent evidence covering the time of the incident. Unproved documents and unattributed phone records fall short. |
A note on the complaint route
The case also illustrates a procedural path that remains important for victims who face inaction: a complaint to the Magistrate, who may direct registration and investigation under what was Section 156(3) CrPC — a power now found in Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Because the offence here dated from 2012, the case proceeded under the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure; for offences committed on or after 1 July 2024, the corresponding provisions are Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for rape and Section 351 for criminal intimidation.
Appeals of this kind are decided on the record of the trial, and each case turns on its own evidence. The value of the judgment lies in its method: identify the core of the testimony, test it against the material contradictions if any, and refuse to let peripheral imperfections or unproved defence theories do the work that evidence must do.
The outcome
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence stand. For practitioners, the decision is a current and clear illustration of settled principles: credible testimony of the prosecutrix needs no crutches, belated medical silence proves nothing, and an alibi is a plea to be proved, not merely suggested.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a conviction rest on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone?
Yes. If the testimony is found reliable and inspires confidence, the law does not insist on corroboration as a matter of rule. Courts examine the deposition for consistency on the core allegation, assess explanations for any delay in reporting, and consider the surrounding circumstances. Corroboration is sought as a matter of prudence where the testimony itself gives reason for caution.
Do contradictions in a witness's statements destroy the case?
Not every contradiction matters. Courts distinguish between material contradictions, which go to the core of the allegation, and minor omissions or improvements that are natural when a person recounts a traumatic event at different times. Only contradictions that shake the substratum of the prosecution case justify rejecting the testimony.
Does the absence of injuries disprove an allegation of rape?
No. The absence of visible injuries does not by itself negate the allegation, particularly where the incident involved threats with a weapon rather than a physical struggle, or where the medical examination took place long after the incident. A belated examination cannot establish what marks did or did not exist months earlier.
What must an accused show to establish an alibi?
An alibi is a plea that the accused was elsewhere when the offence occurred, and the burden of establishing it lies on the accused once the prosecution proves its case. Evidence such as call detail records must be properly proved and connected — it must be shown who was actually using the number at the relevant time. Vague or unlinked records will not do.