Narayan vs State

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 03.11.2026
Pronounced on: 06.11.2026
Uploaded on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011141772014
+ CRL.A. 1050/2014
NARAYAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma,
Mr. Agam Sharma and Ms.
Charvi Kwatra, Advs.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP
with SI Monika, PS Bhalswa
Dairy.
Ms. Astha, Advocate
[DHCLSC] with Ms. Megha
Singh, Advocate for
prosecutrix.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“ Cr.P.C. ”], against the judgment of
th
conviction dated 09 May, 2014 [“ impugned judgment ”] and the
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 1 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

th
order on sentence dated 10 May, 2014 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, North West
District, Rohini Court [“ Trial Court ”], in SC no. 111/2013 arising
out of case FIR no. 162/2012 registered at Police Station Bhalswa
Dairy [“ PS ”] under Sections 376/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[“ IPC ”].
2. The factual matrix of the present case as under:-
th
i) It is the case of the prosecution that on 10 November, 2012, at
about 12:00 noon, while the prosecutrix was present at her house, the
appellant, whom she had known for approximately two years as he
used to visit her husband, came to her house on the pretext that he had
spoken to her husband and had come to purchase their motorcycle.
The prosecutrix made him sit in a room where she was residing and
went to fetch water for him. Upon her return, the appellant caught-
hold of her hand, pushed her onto the bed and forcibly committed
sexual intercourse with her against her consent. Thereafter, he poured
some unknown chemical into her private parts. Owing to a sense of
shame, prosecutrix did not immediately disclose the incident to
anyone. However, on experiencing burning sensation in her private
parts, she went to Base Hospital, where, she received first aid.
ii) Police came at the Base Hospital, and from there, prosecutrix
was shifted to BJRM Hospital, where, her internal medical
examination was conducted. Thereafter, she was brought to the police
station, where, her statement [ Ex. PW-13/A/Mark PX-1 ] was
recorded.
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 2 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

iii) On the basis of her statement and the medical examination, FIR
No. 162/2012, under Section 323 and 376 IPC [ Ex.PW-1/A ] was
registered.
iv) The appellant was arrested on the identification of the
th
complainant on 12 September, 2012. His medical examination vide
MLC [ Ex. PW-4/A ] was conducted at BJRM Hospital. Exhibits were
seized and were later sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini
[“ FSL ”] for examination.
v) Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 376 IPC was filed against the
appellant before the Trial Court.
vi) Charges under Section 376/324 IPC were framed against the
nd
appellant on 22 January, 2013, to which, he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
vii) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses,
including prosecutrix [PW-5], doctors who examined her at Base
Hospital and BJRM Hospital [PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8], Senior
Scientific Officers from FSL [PW-12 and PW-15] and the
Investigating Officer [PW-13].
viii) Statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he stated that he was innocent. He chose not to
lead any defence evidence.
ix) Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide
th
impugned judgment dated 09 May, 2014, convicted the appellant for
the offences punishable under Section 376 and 324 IPC, holding that
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 3 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

the prosecution has established its case through cogent and reliable
evidence and succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt, leaving no room for any hypothesis consistent with
his innocence.
th
x) Vide order dated 10 May, 2014, the appellant was sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.
20,000/-, in default of payment thereof, to undergo further Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 376 IPC. He
was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three
years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment thereof, to
undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence
under Section 324 IPC. It was directed that the substantive sentences
shall run concurrently.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and the order on
sentence, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction suffers from serious errors in the
appreciation of evidence, inasmuch as, the prosecution has failed to
establish the charge of rape. It was contended that the prosecutrix,
examined as PW-5, had turned completely hostile and did not support
the prosecution's case in material particulars. Despite being confronted
with her previous statements, she categorically denied having made
the allegations attributed to her and resiled from the prosecution
version.
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 4 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

5. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix completely
denied the averments recorded in the FIR and the previous statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC, and therefore, her testimony could
not have been treated as reliable evidence to sustain the conviction.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2822, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case
involving allegations of sexual assault, set aside the conviction after
taking note that the prosecutrix had turned hostile and the allegations
were not substantiated by cogent medical evidence. It was submitted
that merely because allegations had been levelled in the FIR or were
reiterated by the Investigating Officer, the same could not be treated as
proved, unless established through admissible and reliable evidence
during the trial.
6. The learned counsel further argued that there is a considerable
delay in recording of the FIR, inasmuch as, the incident allegedly took
th
place on 10 September, 2012 at about 12:00 noon, whereas, the FIR
th
was registered on 11 September, 2012. It was submitted that the
prosecutrix, who was aged about 48 years at the relevant time,
admittedly knew the appellant for the last about two years, yet she did
not immediately disclose the incident to her husband, neighbors or
other family members, including her four major children. The first
narration of the alleged sexual assault was made before the doctor at
th
Base Hospital (PW-3) on 11 September, 2012 at about 10:00 am.
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 5 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

7. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix
admitted the presence of tenants at the ground floor of her house,
including one Sushila, who would have been material witnesses to the
circumstances surrounding the alleged incident. However, neither the
said tenant nor any independent witness was examined by the
prosecution. Admittedly, the statement of the said tenant was not
recorded even by the police. No photographs of the alleged place of
occurrence were taken and nothing was seized from the spot. It was
further pointed out that prosecutrix herself met her husband only on
th th
16 /17 September, 2012, nearly five to six days after the alleged
incident, which, according to learned counsel, was another
circumstance requiring consideration while assessing the overall
probability of the prosecution version.
8. It was further argued that the medical and scientific evidence,
do not establish the commission of rape. The first MLC [Ex. PW-3/A],
prepared at the Base Hospital after examination of the prosecution,
does not record any fresh injury on her person, while the second MLC
[Ex. PW-4/B], prepared at BJRM Hospital, reveal only two superficial
abrasions on either side below the neck, with no other external injuries
on the body or private parts of the prosecutrix. It was further
submitted that MLC [Ex. PW-4/A] of the appellant also does not
record any fresh external injury on his person. Accordingly, it was
submitted that the absence of injuries on the body of the appellant and
any significant injury on the person of the prosecutrix, were relevant
circumstances, which the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 6 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

while determining whether the alleged act was committed forcibly and
against the will of the prosecutrix.
9. It was argued that the learned Trial Court selectively relied
upon the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Latika to hold that there were scratch
marks over right and left side of the neck extending towards the chest,
even though, PW-4 admitted that the superficial abrasions on the neck
could have been caused due to shrugging of clothes. It was argued that
such observation of the doctor in cross examination with the absence
of injuries on any other part of the prosecutrix, could not have been
ignored and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
10. The learned counsel further submitted that the FSL and DNA
reports [Ex. PW-12/C], at best, establish a DNA match between the
blood sample of the appellant [Exhibit 4] and the cloth piece/bed-sheet
recovered from the house of the prosecutrix [Exhibit 1/A]. Even if the
said evidence establishes the sexual contact between the parties, it
does not, by itself, establish that such contact was without the consent
of the prosecutrix. It was emphasized that the version of the
prosecutrix in the FIR was that appellant was sitting the room, while
she had gone to fetch the water and therefore mere recovery of some
DNA material, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of rape.
11. The learned counsel further drew attention to the Chemical
Examination Report [Ex. PW-15/A], which did not detect
hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, nitric acid or any other such
chemical substance in the exhibits, including the vaginal swabs,
vaginal secretions, pubic hair clippings, nail scrapings and other
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 7 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

samples collected from the prosecutrix. No semen traces or chemical
was detected from her body. It was submitted that the Chemical
Examination Report was particularly significant because the initial
allegation was that the appellant had poured some unknown chemical
substance on the private parts of the prosecutrix. It was thus argued
that the learned Trial Court, instead of appreciating the absence of any
chemical substance, sought to explain it away by observing that the
prosecutrix had taken a bath, douched or might have urinated several
times. Such a reasoning was speculative and cannot substitute the
absence of corroborative scientific evidence.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the
impugned judgment demonstrates a fundamental misreading of the
evidence and an impermissible shifting of the burden of proof upon
the appellant. It was submitted that the Trial Court, in its impugned
judgment, incorrectly characterized the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4
and PW-8 as clear, cogent and reliable, despite there being no medical
opinion from these witnesses, which conclusively supported the
prosecution case of forcible sexual intercourse. Furthermore, it was
submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that
appellant had no external injury on his person, particularly when, the
prosecution case is that the act had been committed forcibly. With
respect to the DNA evidence, learned counsel submitted that the
learned Trial Court erroneously placed the obligation upon the
appellant to explain as to how and under what circumstances the
allelic data from his blood sample came to be accounted for in the
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 8 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

mixed allelic data from the source of Exhibit 1-A [cloth piece/bed
sheet], thereby, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. It was
further argued that the learned Trial Court committed a serious error in
the impugned judgment by drawing an adverse inference against the
appellant for not having cross examined the prosecutrix [PW-5],
despite her having turned hostile and denying the material allegations
against him. The Trial Court thereafter presumed that sexual
intercourse had taken place merely from the appellant's admitted
presence in the house and the presence of his DNA on the bed sheet
and further concluded that such intercourse was forcible by relying
upon the superficial abrasions on the neck of the prosecutrix, while
ignoring the opinion of PW-4 that the injuries could have been caused
by shrugging of clothes and the absence of injuries elsewhere either on
the person of the appellant or the prosecutrix. It was contended that
the findings of the learned Trial Court were thus based on selective
appreciation of evidence and could not sustain a conviction for rape.
Submissions on behalf of the State & Prosecutrix:
13. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“ APP” ]
for the State, supported by the learned counsel, appointed by the Delhi
High Court Legal Services Committee ( DHCLSC ) to protect the
interest of the prosecutrix, supported the impugned judgment of
conviction. It was submitted that the findings returned by the learned
Trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of the oral, medical and
scientific evidence available on record and do not warrant any
interference. It was contended that merely because the prosecutrix
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 9 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

resiled from her earlier version during her deposition before the Court,
would not, by itself, render the entire prosecution case doubtful,
particularly when, the material allegations stand corroborated by
independent medical and scientific evidence. The learned APP
submitted that the DNA analysis and the FSL reports establish
independently, the presence of the appellant's DNA on the cloth
piece/bed-sheet Exhibit 1A, thereby, lending corroboration to the
prosecution case regarding the commission of sexual intercourse. It
was further submitted that the injuries noticed on the neck of the
prosecutrix and the testimonies of the examining doctors lend support
to the prosecution version regarding the use of force.
14. It was argued that the evidence has to be appreciated
cumulatively and the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be
considered in isolation from the surrounding circumstances and the
scientific evidence on record. The learned APP further pointed out that
the presence of appellant inside the house of the prosecutrix at the
relevant time, was not disputed by him and the scientific evidence,
establishing his biological connection with the material recovered
from the place of occurrence, assumes significance in this regard. It
was therefore contended that the learned Trial Court had rightly relied
upon the cumulative effect of the medical, scientific and other
circumstantial evidence to conclude that the prosecution was able to
establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the
impugned judgment of conviction be upheld.
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 10 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

Analysis and Conclusion:
15. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having
gone through the evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial
Court, the main question for consideration in the present appeal before
this Court, is whether the prosecution has been able to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix against her consent and further caused
hurt to her by administering an unknown chemical substance.
16. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the initial allegations
attributed by the prosecutrix against the appellant, the medical
evidence [MLCs Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-4/B], the DNA analysis
[Ex.PW-12/C] and the surrounding circumstances. However, the most
significant aspect of the case is that the prosecutrix, who was the star
witness of the prosecution being the victim herself, did not support the
prosecution version. She was examined as PW-5 before the learned
th
Trial Court, and in such testimony, she deposed that on 10
September, 2012 at about 12.00 – 12.30 pm, while she was present at
the first floor of her house, appellant Narayan Pradhan came to her
house. He told her that he has talked to her sons for the purchase of
motorcycle. She asked him to sit in the room and to have water. He
accordingly sat in the room. She gave him a glass of water and
thereafter a cup of tea. She deposed that a quarrel was going on
between her neighbors and therefore she left from there, and by the
time she came back, appellant Narayan had already left. She further
stated that she consumed tea in the kitchen and thereafter felt
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 11 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

giddiness and went to sleep. She woke up after 4-5 hours. She started
feeling itching in her private parts and went to Base Hospital, where,
doctor medically examined her. She deposed that she had told the
doctor whatever she had stated before the Court. She stated that police
came from PS Bhalaswa Dairy and took her to Jahangirpuri Hospital
and also took the accused to the police station. She further stated that
she was not aware, whether police had recorded her statement.
According to her, her signatures were obtained by the police on some
papers. She categorically stated that appellant Narayan had not done
anything wrong with her.
17. PW-5 was declared hostile and was cross examined with the
permission of the Court. In such cross examination, she was
confronted with her previous statement under Section 161 Cr. PC.
However, she categorically denied the allegation attributed to the
appellant by her in the statement mark PX-1/Ex. PW 13/A. She denied
having made the allegations contained in the FIR. The lengthy cross
examination by the learned APP has been of no help in establishing
that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her against her
will or had administered any chemical substance in her private parts.
18. It is a settled law that the testimony of the prosecutrix in a case
involving sexual offences, ordinarily deserves great weight, and where
found trustworthy and reliable, can form the basis of conviction even
without corroboration. Equally, however, where the prosecutrix turns
hostile and disowns the material allegations, the Court is required to
carefully examine whether the remaining evidence independently
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 12 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

establishes the ingredients of the alleged offence. The previous
statement of the prosecutrix Mark PX-1/Ex.PW-13/A cannot be
treated as substantive evidence of the facts stated therein.
19. The Court is conscious that the mere fact that prosecutrix did
not support the prosecution case, cannot automatically result in the
acquittal of the accused, inasmuch as, the part of the testimony of even
a hostile witness coupled with the other admissible evidence, may still
be relied upon. Prosecutrix having turned hostile, the prosecution was
required to establish through other reliable evidence that the alleged
sexual act was committed without the consent of the prosecutrix. The
mere fact that the appellant was present inside the house at the
relevant time is not by itself sufficient to establish the commission of
rape. The absence of any statement of the prosecutrix under Section
164 Cr. P.C. is also a relevant factor, though, not independently fatal
to the prosecution. The evidence must, therefore, be examined to
determine whether the medical and scientific material on record
bridges the gap created by the failure of the prosecutrix to support the
prosecution version.
20. Coming to the medical evidence, PW-3 and PW-4 proved the
medical records Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-4/B, respectively. PW-3
th
deposed that the prosecutrix was brought to the hospital on 11
September, 2012 at about 10:00 AM with the alleged history of sexual
assault and injection of some substance into her genital area at her
th
house on 10 September, 2012 at about 12:00 noon, and that the
assailant was known to her for the preceding two years. PW-4 deposed
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 13 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

that the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Shabir under his supervision,
noted two curvilinear superficial abrasions, one on either side just
below the neck, and referred her for gynecological examination. PW-8
Dr. Latika, who conducted the gynecological examination, also
noticed scratch marks on both sides of the neck extending towards the
chest. However, no other signs or symptoms of injury were found, and
the external genitalia were healthy with no signs of injury.
Significantly, PW-4 admitted in cross-examination that injuries of the
nature recorded in Ex.PW-4/B could be caused by the shrugging of
clothes, although their precise cause would depend upon the manner in
which the clothes were worn or used. Further, the MLC of the
appellant, Ex.PW-4/A, recorded that no fresh external injury was
present on his person. Thus, the medical evidence establishes the
presence of superficial abrasions on the neck of the prosecutrix but
does not conclusively establish that they were caused by the use of
force during a sexual assault.
21. It is well settled that the absence of injuries, either on the
prosecutrix or the accused, is not by itself decisive of the question
whether rape was committed; nevertheless, in the peculiar facts of the
present case, where the prosecutrix herself has denied the allegations,
the limited nature of the injuries and the medical witness's admission
regarding their possible alternative cause assume relevance. The Trial
Court, while relying upon these abrasions as indicative of the use of
force, failed to adequately consider the possibility of their having been
caused in the manner suggested in cross-examination. Consequently,
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 14 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

the medical evidence cannot be treated as sufficient independent
corroboration of the allegation that the sexual act, if any, was
committed against the will of the prosecutrix.
22. The scientific evidence, particularly the DNA analysis report
Ex.PW-12/C, has also been relied upon by the Trial Court to conclude
that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix. PW-12 Ms. L. Babyto Devi proved the DNA reports
Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-12/C, along with the corresponding allele
data Ex.PW-12/B and Ex.PW-12/D. The report Ex.PW-12/C
establishes a DNA match between the appellant’s blood sample,
marked as Exhibit 4, and the cloth piece/bed sheet, marked as Exhibit
1/A; however, the evidentiary value of this finding has to be
appreciated in its proper perspective. Even assuming that the presence
of the appellant’s biological material on the bed sheet establishes
sexual contact, it does not, by itself, establish that such contact was
without the consent of the prosecutrix. The distinction between proof
of sexual intercourse and proof of rape is fundamental, and the former
cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the latter has been
established. It is also relevant that the presence of the appellant’s DNA
on the bed sheet may be consistent with his presence in the house,
which is an admitted position and is not disputed by the appellant. In
the absence of reliable evidence independently establishing that the
sexual act was without the consent of the prosecutrix, the DNA
evidence cannot be treated as conclusive proof of rape. The Trial
Court, therefore, fell into error in treating the DNA findings as
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 15 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

sufficient to establish not merely the occurrence of sexual contact but
also its alleged non-consensual nature.
23. There is yet another material aspect concerning the allegation
that the appellant had poured an unknown chemical substance into the
private parts of the prosecutrix. PW-15 proved the Chemical
Examination Report Ex.PW-15/A, which categorically records that
hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid and nitric acid were not detected in
the exhibits sent for examination, including the samples collected from
the prosecutrix. No chemical substance corresponding to the allegation
was detected in the samples examined, thereby lending no scientific
support to the averment that any such substance had been
administered/poured. Further, the prosecutrix herself did not support
the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse or the administration of
any chemical substance and categorically denied the allegations
attributed by her in her earlier statements. The Trial Court sought to
explain the absence of chemical traces by observing that the
prosecutrix might have taken a bath, douched or urinated several times
after the incident. However, such an explanation remains speculative
and is not supported by any specific medical or scientific evidence
establishing that the alleged chemical substance had been washed
away. More importantly, in the absence of any chemical traces in the
samples examined and in view of the prosecutrix having disowned the
allegation, the prosecution has failed to establish the administration of
any such chemical substance. Nor is there any other reliable evidence
connecting the appellant with the alleged act. In these circumstances,
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 16 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant caused hurt to the prosecutrix by administering an unknown
chemical substance.
24. This Court also finds considerable merit in the contention of the
appellant that the Trial Court has proceeded on an erroneous
appreciation of the evidence while returning the finding of guilt. The
Trial Court drew an adverse inference against the appellant on account
of his failure to cross-examine PW-5, without adequately appreciating
that the prosecutrix had herself denied the material allegations and had
not supported the prosecution case. The absence of cross-examination
by the defence could not have been treated as an admission of
allegations which the witness had categorically disowned in her
examination-in-chief before the Court.
25. Further, the Trial Court placed an impermissible burden upon
the appellant to explain the presence of his DNA on the bed sheet,
overlooking that the initial burden of establishing every essential
ingredient of the offence continued to rest upon the prosecution. The
failure to explain the presence of biological material cannot, in the
facts of the present case, substitute proof of absence of consent.
26. The prosecution also failed to examine the tenant of the
prosecutrix, who was residing in the same house, and whose testimony
could have provided relevant evidence or even clarity regarding the
circumstances surrounding the alleged occurrence.
27. The cumulative effect of these omissions, the prosecutrix's
categorical and absolute denial, and the inconclusive medical and
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 17 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

scientific evidence creates substantial doubt regarding the
prosecution's version. The circumstances relied upon by the Trial
Court, even when considered collectively, do not form a complete and
conclusive chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellant and
excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
28. It must also be borne in mind that an offence under Section 376
IPC is undoubtedly grave and serious, carrying consequences of
immense magnitude for both the accused and the victim. The
seriousness of the offence, however, makes it all the more necessary
for the prosecution to establish the charge through cogent and reliable
evidence, and for the Court to carefully scrutinize the entire material
before recording a finding of guilt. While the Court must remain
sensitive to the trauma and dignity of the victim, it must equally
ensure that an accused is not convicted on the basis of conjectures,
assumptions or evidence that falls short of the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. A wrongful conviction in such a case would
cause grave injustice to the accused, just as the failure to secure justice
in a genuine case of sexual assault would cause grave injustice to the
victim. The balance, therefore, lies in ensuring that neither the gravity
of the allegation nor the sensitivity of the offence supplants the
fundamental requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 376 and
324 IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The findings
returned by the learned Trial Court are based on an erroneous
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 18 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56

appreciation of the evidence, particularly in treating the presence of
DNA as proof of non-consensual sexual intercourse and the superficial
abrasions as conclusive evidence of force. The fact that the prosecutrix
turned hostile would not, in isolation, be sufficient to discard the
prosecution case, however, when considered alongside the absence of
reliable independent and scientific evidence establishing the essential
ingredients of the offences, it assumes considerable significance. The
Trial Court has failed to give due weight to the material deficiencies
and the absence of scientific corroboration concerning the alleged
administration of a chemical substance. The conviction of the
appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained merely on the basis of
presumptions drawn from his presence at the house and the DNA
findings relating to the bed sheet. The impugned judgment of
th
conviction and the order on sentence dated 10 May, 2014 are
accordingly set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges
framed against him, and the appeal is allowed.
30. Bail bond of the appellant is cancelled and surety bond stands
discharged.
31. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court and
Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/ NA
CRL.A. 1050/2014 Page 19 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:56