A rape conviction cannot rest on prosecutrix testimony contradicted by medical, forensic, and surrounding evidence.

The appellant challenged his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for offences under Sections 363, 368 read with 366, 376 and 506 IPC, and the concurrent sentences of three, five, seven and two years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively.

The prosecution alleged that on 24 May 2010 the appellant forcibly took the prosecutrix from Budh Bazar Market in a TSR, transported her by train to Pilakhwa, Uttar Pradesh, confined her for four days and subjected her to sexual assault while threatening her family.

The FIR was registered on 27 May 2010 on the complaint of the prosecutrix’s brother, and the prosecutrix appeared at the police station on 28 May 2010, allegedly after being brought back by the appellant’s relatives.

Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29 May 2010.

The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, principally the prosecutrix, her brother and sister-in-law, the medical witnesses, and the investigating officers.

Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficiently reliable and of such sterling quality as to sustain convictions for kidnapping, abduction, rape and criminal intimidation without corroboration?

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken, confined and sexually assaulted by the appellant?

Whether the prosecution established that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the alleged occurrence for the purposes of Sections 363, 366 and 368 IPC?

Whether the contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the MLC and FSL results, and the surrounding circumstances entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt?

The Court applied Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 and 506 IPC and the prosecution’s obligation to prove every ingredient of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that a conviction may rest solely on the testimony of a prosecutrix, but only where that testimony is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality.

Relying principally on Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, and Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443, the Court held that the core version must remain consistent and must withstand scrutiny against medical, forensic and surrounding evidence.

The Court further applied the principle that the prosecutrix’s evidence cannot be accepted as gospel truth where it is improbable or contradicted by the record, relying on Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, Raju v. State, and Ved Pal v. State of Haryana.

For age determination, the Court held that an unsupported school-register entry, particularly where the underlying source was unproved and competing age particulars existed, was insufficient by itself to conclusively establish minority; the absence of an ossification test was also considered significant.

The Court found that the prosecutrix’s account did not satisfy the sterling-witness standard.

Her version differed materially from that of PW-4 and PW-5 concerning the date and time of occurrence, whether she was taken while buying or returning from vegetables, the presence of children, and whether the market was crowded.

Her failure to raise an alarm or seek assistance during the alleged journey through a busy market, public roads, a railway platform, a passenger train and the place of confinement weakened the allegation of forcible abduction and confinement.

The MLC, prepared when she was in police custody and away from the appellant, recorded that she had left home due to parental pressure, returned by herself, and had reported no physical or sexual assault; the Court rejected the later explanation that she had made these disclosures under threat.

Her assertion that her clothes were soaked with blood was positively contradicted by the medical and FSL evidence, which detected no blood on her clothes or samples and no semen on the examined exhibits.

The Court also found the evidence of minority unreliable because the school entry was based only on an unverified parental disclosure, the parents were not examined, the complainant had given a different and uncertain date of birth, and no ossification test was conducted.

Collectively, these infirmities created reasonable doubt regarding the alleged forcible taking, rape, intimidation and the prosecutrix’s age.

The prosecutrix’s testimony was materially inconsistent and unsupported by the MLC, FSL report and other evidence; the prosecution also failed to conclusively establish her minority.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction dated 19 July 2013 and order on sentence dated 24 July 2013 were set aside, and Shahbuddin was acquitted of all charges.

He was discharged from his bail and surety bonds, and pending applications were disposed of.