Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ···························································· 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ························································ 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ························································4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ·························································· 6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ··························································7
SUMMARYOF ARGUMENTS ···················································· 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ······················································· 9
PRAYER ············································································· 13

2
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED:

1. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217

2. Parminder vs State Of Delhi AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1035.
3. Rajinder v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2009) 16 SCC 69]
4. Rajoo v. State of MP, AIR 2009 SC 858
5. State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550]
6. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384.
7. Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa [(2003) 8 SCC 590]
8. Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 2 SCC 9]

STATUTES REFERRED:

1. Dholakpur Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 63, 64, and 65

2. Dholakpur Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
3. Dholakpur Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 183

BOOKS:

1. The Indian Penal Code , Ratanlal And Dhirajlal ,36th edition, Lexis Nexis.

E-RESOURCES:

1. SCC online
2. Scovbserver.in

3
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
DNS Dholakpur Nyaya Sanhita
DNSS Dholakpur Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita
DPOCSO Act Dholakpur Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012

FIR First Information Report

FSL Forensic Science Laboratory

SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases

4
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF J URISDICTION

The Appellant in this case has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 134 of
the Indian Constitution, which outlines the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in criminal
matters. It grants the Supreme Court the power to hear appeals from judgments, final orders,
or sentences in criminal proceedings of a High Court.

5
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF F ACTS

1. The Complainant, a 13-year-old minor girl, was subjected to repeated sexual assault by
her cousin, the Appellant, Bheem Gupta, over a period of three months at the Appellant's
residence. The minor victim initially remained silent due to threats and coercion from the
Appellant, who warned her of dire consequences if she disclosed the incidents to anyone.

2. The matter came to light when the Complainant's mother noticed significant behavioral
changes in her daughter and upon persistent inquiry, the victim narrated her ordeal.

3. An FIR was lodged against the Appellant after six months of the alleged incidents,
following which he was arrested and charged under Sections 63, 64, and 65 of the
Dholakpur Nyaya Sanhita (DNS), along with relevant provisions under the Dholakpur
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (DPOCSO Act), 2012.

4. The prosecution's case relied on the medical examination report, forensic evidence, and
the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the Dholakpur Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita (DNSS).

5. The Appellant denied all allegations, claiming false implication. His defense focused on
the absence of semen on the victim's vaginal swab and clothing (as per the FSL report),
and the delay in filing the FIR.

6. The Trial Court of Kaligarh convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to life
imprisonment. The High Court of Rampur upheld this conviction, citing the gravity of
the offense and the corroborative nature of evidence.

7. The Appellant has now approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Dholakpur,
challenging his conviction on grounds of lack of credible evidence, delay in filing the
FIR, and false implication due to an alleged family dispute.

6
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the testimony of the minor victim, in the absence of conclusive medical
evidence, is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the Appellant ?
2. Whether the delay in filing the FIR vitiated the prosecution's case and created
reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations?
3. Whether the absence of semen traces in the FSL report negates the occurrence of the
alleged crime?

7
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the testimony of the minor victim, in the absence of conclusive medical
evidence, is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the Appellant ?

The testimony by the victim is trustworthy enough to constitute a conviction, as held in

various cases, taking in view the nature of our Indian society no woman, unless and until it is
as much grave or serious, there won’t be a disclosure by her. Also, the mere inconsistency in
the victim’s statement throughout the investigation, is not a ground on which she must be
disbelieved. According to the section 29 of the DPOCSO Act, 2012, the burden of proof lies
with the accused to prove innocence.

2. Whether the delay in filing the FIR vitiated the pr osecution's case and cr eated
r easonable doubt r egar ding the ver acity of the allegations?

Merely on the basis that the FIR was made with a delay in time after the offence , the veracity
of the allegation cannot be questioned. There remain several factors that may lead to the
delay in constituting an FIR.

3. Whether the absence of semen tr aces in the FSL r epor t negates the occur r ence of
the alleged cr ime?

In sexual assault cases, especially with delayed reporting, absence of medical evidence
doesn't invalidate charges. As confirmed in multiple Supreme Court judgments, rape doesn't
require complete penetration or semen presence. The victim's credible testimony aligns with
DNS and DPOCSO Act provisions, which both courts found sufficient for conviction.

8
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE TESTIMONY OF THE MINOR VICTIM IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE

CONVICTION EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCLUSIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE

1. It is well established by the principle of law that the testimony of the victim is
trustworthy enough to sustain conviction. In this case even if there is an absence of
conclusive medical evidence against the appellant of the case, the victim’s testimony
needs no corroboration from the evidence.

2. The same was held in the case , Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1,
where it was discussed that in India a disclosure of this nature was likely to ruin the
prospect of the girl’s rehabilitation in society for all times to come and unless her
story was painfully true she would not have taken such grave risk merely to malign
the accused2.

3. In the case of Rajoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 , it was held that mere statement of
the prosecutrix herself is enough to record a conviction.

4. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh4 , this Court elaborated: The courts must, while
evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting
woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against
her honor such as is involved in the commission of rape on her.

5. In the case of Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh 5 it was held that , a
conviction on the sole testimony of the victim is sustainable where no circumstances
caste a shadow over her veracity.

1
(1983) 3 SCC 217
2
The Indian Penal Code , Ratanlal And Dhirajlal 36th edition, Lexis Nexis, pg.643
3
AIR 2009 SC 858
4
[(1996) 2 SCC 384]
5
[(2010) 2 SCC 9]

9
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

6. The DPOCSO Act, 2012, specifically recognizes the vulnerability of child victims
and the importance of their testimony. Section 29 of the Act creates a presumption of
guilt against the accused, placing the burden of proof on the accused to prove his
innocence.

7. In the present case, the minor victim has consistently maintained her testimony
throughout the trial. The victim's testimony reveals details about the repeated acts of
sexual assault committed by the Appellant over a period of three months.

8. The High Court of Rampur, after careful evaluation of the evidence, found no reason
to disbelieve the victim's testimony. As observed in Rajinder v. State of Himachal
Pradesh6 , minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of a traumatized
victim should not be grounds for disbelieving the entire testimony.

II. THE DELAY IN FILING THE FIR DOES NOT VITIATE THE PROSECUTION'S
CASE

1. Merely on the basis that the FIR was made with a delay in time after the offence , the
veracity of the allegation cannot be questioned. There remain several factors that may
lead to the delay in constituting an FIR. It is a settled legal position that delay in filing
an FIR in sexual assault cases, particularly involving minor victims, should not be
viewed with the same level of scrutiny as in other criminal cases. The unique
circumstances and societal factors that impact reporting of such crimes must be taken
into account.

2. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh7 , this Hon'ble Court observed: The courts cannot
overlook the fact that in sexual offences, delay in lodging the FIR can be due to
variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members

6
[(2009) 16 SCC 69]
7
[(1996) 2 SCC 384]

10
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of
the prosecutrix and the honor of her family.

3. Similarly, in Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa 8 , this Court Emphasized that delays
in reporting sexual assaults do not inherently weaken the prosecution's case,
provided there are satisfactory explanations for such delays.

4. In the present case, the delay of six months in filing the FIR is adequately explained
by the following factors:

a) The victim is a minor girl of only 13 years, who may not have fully
comprehended the nature of the acts committed against her.

b) The accused is her cousin, creating a complex familial relationship that

would naturally make reporting more difficult.

c) The victim was threatened with dire consequences if she disclosed the
incidents to anyone.

d) The matter came to light only when the victim's mother noticed behavioral
changes and specifically inquired about them.

5. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain9 , this Court held that

delay in filing FIR in rape cases is not unusual and can be due to various factors
including threats, societal pressure, and emotional trauma.

8
[(2003) 8 SCC 590]
9
[(1990) 1 SCC 550]

11
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

III. THE ABSENCE OF SEMEN TRACES IN THE FSL REPORT DOES NOT
NEGATE THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CRIME

1. It is well-established that the absence of medical evidence, particularly in delayed

reporting cases, does not automatically invalidate the charge of sexual assault. This
principle has been consistently upheld by this Hon'ble Court. In the present case, the
medical examination and FSL report were conducted six months after the alleged
incidents. As per the High Court of Rampur injuries sustained by the victim may
have healed by the time of medical examination.

2. In the case of Parminder vs State Of Delhi10 the Supreme Court had upheld a High
Court ruling that it is “quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without
producing any injury to the genital or leaving any seminal stains...to constitute the
offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis
with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within
the Labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even
an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law,” the Supreme
Court had said.”

3. In the judgment in the case of Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh 11, the
Supreme Court had held that even if there is a slight penetration with no depth and the
hymen is intact without any trace of semen, there was no ground to hold that there
was no rape.

4. Furthermore, the definition of "penetrative sexual assault" under the Sec. 3 of the
DPOCSO Act does not require ejaculation as a necessary element of the offense. The
absence of semen, therefore, is irrelevant to establishing the commission of the
crime.The victim's testimony clearly describes acts that fall within the ambit of
Sections 63, 64, and 65 of the DNS and the relevant provisions of the DPOCSO Act,
2012. This testimony, found credible by both the Trial Court and the High Court, is
sufficient to establish the charges against the Appellant.

10
AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1035
11
[(2010) 2 SCC 9]

12
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

PRAYER

In light of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the present appeal and uphold the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the High Court of Rampur, that the appellant is convicted under the section
63, 64 and 65 of the DNS.
2. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL, AS IN DUTY

BOUND, EVER PRAY.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

13