Acquittal in Gang Rape Case Due to Non-Corroborative Forensic Evidence and Victim Testimony Lacking "Sterling Quality"

The Appellants were convicted by the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Bastar, for allegedly committing gang rape under Section 376(d) IPC and criminal intimidation under Section 506 (Part II) IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 23.03.2014, the Appellants lured the victim (PW-6) to a rented house, administered a drugged drink, and committed sexual intercourse against her will.

The Trial Court sentenced them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Appellants challenged the conviction, citing medical inconsistencies and the victim's own testimony exonerating one of the accused.

1. Whether the medical and forensic evidence, specifically the lack of DNA/semen matching, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape.

2. Whether the testimony of the victim (PW-6) meets the "sterling quality" requirement to base a conviction solely on her statement.

3. Whether the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act applies to a charge under Section 376(d) IPC.

The Court applied Section 376(d) and 506 of the IPC regarding gang rape and intimidation.

It relied on the precedent of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, which mandates DNA testing or matching of semen to create a "foolproof" prosecution case.

Regarding the reliability of the prosecutrix, the Court followed Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, establishing the "sterling witness" test.

Additionally, it applied the principle from Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana that the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act does not extend to Section 376(d) IPC.

The Court found the medical evidence inconclusive as the doctor (PW-8) gave no definite opinion on rape and found no injuries.

Regarding forensic evidence, although the FSL report found human sperm, the prosecution failed to perform DNA matching to link it to the Appellants, directly violating the requirement set in Krishan Kumar Malik.

Critically, the Court observed that the victim (PW-6) admitted in cross-examination that Appellant Pawan Soyam did not commit rape.

Her conduct—traveling 30kms without informing parents and failing to raise an alarm in a crowded residential area despite staying for six hours—suggested consensual involvement rather than coercion.

Consequently, the Court determined she was not a "sterling witness" and her testimony was riddled with discrepancies.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of scientific corroboration and the unreliable nature of the victim's testimony.

The Appellants were acquitted on the principle of benefit of doubt and their bail bonds were ordered to remain in force for six months pursuant to Section 437-A CrPC.