Acquittal Upheld Where Contradictory Testimony of Prosecutrix Lacks Corroboration from Medical and Forensic Evidence

The State appealed an acquittal by the Trial Court concerning an incident on the night of January 11-12, 2011.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) alleged that the Respondent (Irfan) gagged her, lifted her to his room, and committed rape.

The Respondent claimed false implication due to a dispute between his mother and stepfather (who was allegedly in connivance with the prosecutrix's father).

The Trial Court acquitted the Respondent on December 6, 2012, citing material contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and a lack of medical/forensic corroboration.

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was of "sterling quality" and reliable enough to form the sole basis of conviction despite material contradictions.

2. Whether the prosecution successfully established that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident.

3. Whether the medical and forensic evidence supported the allegations of forcible sexual assault.

The court applied Sections 363 (Kidnapping) and 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It adhered to the "sterling witness" doctrine established in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), which requires a witness's version to be unassailable and consistent from the initial statement to the end of the trial.

Regarding the determination of age, the court followed Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, holding that school register entries lack evidentiary value unless the person who provided the info is examined and the entry is verified.

It applied the principle that if two views are possible, the view favouring the accused’s acquittal should be upheld unless perverse (Ved Pal v. State of Haryana).

The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony riddled with contradictions: she gave three different versions of how she was taken to the room (lifting vs. dragging) and gave conflicting accounts of whether the accused fled or stayed at the scene.

Medical findings (MLC) were inconsistent with her claims; she alleged "bleeding like water," yet the MLC and FSL reports showed no blood or semen on her clothes or vaginal swabs.

On the issue of age, the Court noted that the school's PGT (PW-4) admitted the school did not verify the previous school-leaving certificate, and the father’s testimony regarding the family’s 20-year residency in Delhi suggested the prosecutrix was likely 23-26 years old rather than 13.

The Court concluded that the cumulative weight of these discrepancies rendered the testimony unreliable and failed the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

It held that the prosecutrix did not qualify as a "sterling witness" due to material prevarications.

The Court further held that the age of the prosecutrix was not conclusively proven as minor because the school records were unverified and contradicted by the father’s oral testimony.

Finding no perversity or manifest error in the Trial Court's judgment, the Court granted the Respondent the benefit of doubt.