No DNA, no eyewitnesses — and still a conviction for 20 years.

One night in a forest, and the question of a single witness

When Treda Sungoh was convicted for raping a 15-year-old girl in the forests of West Jaintia Hills, the trial judge in Jowai handed him 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The victim had told her story to the court: how the accused met her on 22 August 2021 while she was out buying something, insisted she get into his car, drove her to a secluded forest area, forcibly pulled her out, undressed her, and raped her twice — once that evening and once during the night — keeping her in the forest till morning. The next day, he dropped her at a community hall. She ran home, told her parents, and the FIR was lodged at the Women Police Station, Jowai the same day.

The stakes were straightforward: a conviction under the POCSO Act that carried a minimum of 20 years, and an appeal that asked the High Court of Meghalaya to decide whether the victim's word alone — without DNA evidence, without independent eyewitnesses — was enough to keep a man in prison for two decades.

What the post-mortem actually said

The medico-legal examination of the victim, conducted at the Civil Hospital, Jowai, revealed injuries that told their own story. The doctor noted a perineal laceration, a tear in the posterior fourchette, and active bleeding from the genital area. The medical opinion was unequivocal: recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. The victim's hymen was torn, and the injuries were consistent with forceful penetration.

This was not a case where the medical evidence was ambiguous. The injuries matched the victim's account of being forcibly raped twice in a forest overnight. The trial court, presided over by the Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, found the medical corroboration sufficient to support the victim's testimony under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Why the Trial Court convicted

The Special Judge convicted Treda Sungoh on 13 February 2023 under Section 5(1)/6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation). The sentence: 20 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000 under POCSO, and 3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 under Section 506 IPC. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. — setting off the period already undergone — was granted.

The accused appealed to the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong. His counsel argued that the victim's testimony was unreliable, that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove rape, that DNA analysis had not been conducted, and that vital witnesses — including the doctor who examined the victim and the investigating officer — had not been examined.

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

The High Court bench, comprising Justice S. Vaidyanathan (author) and Justice W. Diengdoh (concurring), did not buy the argument. They turned to a line of Supreme Court precedents that have shaped how sexual assault cases are evaluated in Indian courts.

The first was Ganesan v. State (AIR 2020 SC 5019), which held that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

The second was Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2012) 8 SCC 21), which introduced the concept of a "sterling witness" — a witness whose version is unassailable, consistent from beginning to end, natural, withstands cross-examination, and correlates with all supporting material. If such a witness passes the test, conviction can rest on that testimony alone.

The third was State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (1994 (6) SCC 29), which reinforced that even an attempt at penetration constitutes the offence of rape — a principle that made the medical evidence of genital injuries sufficient even if full penetration was disputed.

The fourth was State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh ((1996) 2 SCC 384), which reminded courts that rape destroys the personality and soul of the victim, and that minor contradictions should not be allowed to defeat an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

The fifth was State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh ((1993) 2 SCC 622), which held that evidence has to be weighed, not counted — and that non-examination of some witnesses does not vitiate the case when the evidence of the examined witnesses is qualitatively sufficient.

The doctrine that mattered

The High Court applied the "sterling witness" framework to the victim's testimony. They found that her version was natural, consistent, and unshaken in cross-examination. She had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. The medical evidence corroborated her account of forceful penetration. The absence of DNA analysis did not weaken the prosecution case, because the medico-legal report independently established injuries consistent with sexual assault.

The court also rejected the argument that non-examination of the doctor and investigating officer was fatal. Citing Raghubir Singh, the bench observed that evidence is to be weighed, not counted. The victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

THE PLAY: In POCSO cases, if the victim's testimony is natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence showing genital injuries consistent with sexual assault, the court can convict without DNA analysis or independent eyewitnesses. The "sterling witness" standard applies.

What this means for practitioners

For defence counsel, the takeaway is sobering. The argument that "no DNA, no case" will not fly where the victim's testimony is credible and the medical evidence is consistent. The High Court made it clear that procedural gaps — such as non-examination of certain witnesses or absence of forensic analysis — do not automatically vitiate the prosecution case if the core evidence is qualitatively strong.

For prosecutors, the judgment is a reminder to ensure that the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement is recorded promptly and that the medico-legal examination is conducted without delay. The medical evidence in this case was critical: the perineal laceration and active bleeding were physical markers that the court could not ignore.

For the victim's family and the broader public, the judgment reaffirms that the law does not require a victim of sexual assault to produce a parade of witnesses. Her word, if it passes the "sterling witness" test, is enough.

The bottom line

Treda Sungoh's appeal was dismissed on 8 July 2024. The conviction and sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, along with the sentence under Section 506 IPC, were upheld. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the trial court's judgment.

The case is a stark illustration of a principle that every criminal lawyer in India must internalise: in sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony — when it is natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence — is not just evidence. It is the evidence.