Absence of Sexual Assault Allegations in FIR and Subsequent Development of Case Vitiates Conviction for Rape

The prosecution alleged that on 18.01.1992, the appellants forcibly entered the victim's house, dragged her out, and assaulted her and her mother-in-law due to a land dispute

While the initial FIR (fardbeyan) recorded on the day of the incident mentioned only assault (marpit) and SC/ST atrocities, the victim later recorded a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. several months later, alleging gang rape

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 323, and 376(2)(g) of the IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act

The appellants challenged the rape conviction, citing the delay in the allegation and the ongoing land dispute

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix qualifies as that of a "sterling witness" to sustain a conviction for gang rape in the absence of initial allegations in the FIR

2. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the failure to seize incriminating physical evidence (clothes, weapons) prejudiced the defense

3. Whether the improvements in the victim's testimony regarding gang rape were an afterthought motivated by a land dispute

The court applied the "sterling witness" doctrine as defined in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), which requires a witness's version to be unassailable, consistent from the start, and matching material particulars

It also applied Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the use of prior statements for contradiction/corroboration

Additionally, the court relied on Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand regarding the necessity of examining the Investigating Officer to prove the fairness of the investigation and the site of the occurrence

The High Court found the victim's testimony regarding gang rape lacked "sterling" quality. It noted that the initial fardbeyan, signed by her husband, contained no mention of rape despite being recorded shortly after the incident

The Court observed significant inconsistencies: the victim claimed unconsciousness, yet medical records (Ext 2/a, 2/b) did not support this

Furthermore, the husband’s testimony contradicted itself regarding whether he witnessed the rape or returned only after the accused had left

The Court took a dim view of the prosecution’s failure to examine the Investigating Officer, noting that no site plan was prepared and no physical evidence (like stained clothing) was seized to corroborate the gang rape charge

Given the admitted long-standing land dispute, the Court determined the rape allegation was a belated improvement intended for revenge

The conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC were set aside. However, the Court upheld the convictions for simple assault and atrocities under Sections 148 and 323 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, ordering the immediate release of the appellants as they had already served the sentences for the upheld charges