A doubtful prosecutrix’s testimony, unsupported by corroborative evidence, cannot sustain conviction.

The appellant, Bishan Ram, was convicted by the Special Sessions Judge (POCSO)/Sessions Judge, Champawat, for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), and was sentenced to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment for the sexual-offence charge, along with lesser sentences for the other offences.

The prosecution case was that the fifteen-year-old victim, who was the appellant’s niece, stayed at his house from approximately 8–16 March 2022, during which he allegedly raped her on several occasions, assaulted and threatened her. She escaped on 17 March 2022, disclosed the incident to her maternal aunt and uncle, and the FIR was lodged on 18 March 2022.

The victim’s date of birth was proved through school records as 20 February 2007.

Her medical examination on 20 March 2022 recorded a torn hymen, tenderness and swelling, while the forensic report did not materially support the prosecution case.

The victim, her maternal aunt, maternal uncle, doctor, police officials and school principal were examined as prosecution witnesses. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication, also relying on his physical disability.

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficiently reliable and credible to sustain the appellant’s conviction for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault in the absence of material corroboration?

2. Whether the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s account, her failure to disclose the alleged assaults despite repeated opportunities, and the omissions in the investigation created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act?

The Court applied Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, concerning voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a child.

It reiterated that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix may support a conviction if it is wholly reliable and inspires confidence; however, where the testimony is not completely reliable, the Court may seek corroboration from medical, forensic or other material evidence.

The prosecution was required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also referred to Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, on the need to examine surrounding circumstances and corroborative evidence where the prosecution version is inherently deficient or unreliable.

The Court held that the prosecutrix’s testimony did not meet the threshold of wholly reliable evidence.

It found material inconsistency regarding whether the appellant asked her to stay with him while she was going to or returning from school.

Her Section 164 CrPC statement did not mention that she had stayed with her aunt on 10 and 14 March, although she stated this in court; the aunt, who lived approximately five minutes away, was not examined.

The Court considered it significant that the victim did not disclose the alleged assaults to her aunt, mother or other persons despite repeatedly leaving the appellant’s house, attending school, and having access to nearby relatives.

The alleged broken door latches, bedsheet and cowshed were not investigated or seized, and the cowshed was not shown in the site plan.

The cousin allegedly present during part of the relevant period and the victim’s mother were also not examined.

Although the medical report noted a torn hymen and other symptoms, the Court held that the medical and forensic material did not sufficiently corroborate the prosecution version.

In view of these contradictions, omissions and investigative deficiencies, the Court concluded that the prosecutrix’s evidence was not sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction by itself.

It acquitted Bishan Ram of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

As the appellant was in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith unless required in another case, subject to furnishing the bond and sureties contemplated under Section 437-A CrPC within one month of release.