Acquittal Upheld Where Hostile Testimony and Inconclusive Medical Evidence Prevent Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The State appealed an acquittal dated May 10, 2013, regarding an alleged attempted rape of a six-year-old girl on January 21, 2012

According to the initial police report, the Respondent lured the victim to his jhuggi to buy tobacco and attempted the assault

The victim’s mother (PW-4) originally claimed she caught the Respondent with his clothes down and the victim crying

During the trial, the victim (PW-2) supported the prosecution in her examination-in-chief but turned hostile during cross-examination, claiming she was tutored by police and that no wrong was done

The mother (PW-4) and father (PW-7) also resiled from their initial statements, attributing the victim's injuries to a fall

Medical evidence showed an intact hymen and a small abrasion at the posterior fourchette

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting the Respondent the benefit of doubt based on the hostile testimony of the prosecutrix and material witnesses

2. Whether the medical and forensic evidence provided sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction despite the retraction by the witnesses

The court applied Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning rape of a minor and Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal

It relied on the principle from Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P., which posits that the testimony of a hostile witness is not entirely discarded but requires careful scrutiny

It further applied the "sterling witness" test from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Nirmal Premkumar v. State, requiring the victim's testimony to be of very high quality, consistent, and unassailable to support a conviction without corroboration

Lastly, it applied Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, holding that where ocular testimony is inconsistent and medical/forensic evidence is negative, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case lacked a "sterling witness" as defined by precedent.

While the victim (PW-2) initially alleged assault, her subsequent claim in cross-examination that she was tutored by police created significant doubt

This doubt was compounded by the mother (PW-4), the original complainant, who testified that the victim's injuries resulted from a fall, effectively demolishing the prosecution's foundation

The Court noted that the medical evidence (MLC) was inconclusive; the doctor did not testify that the small abrasion was definitively linked to sexual assault, and the hymen remained intact

Furthermore, the FSL reports were negative for semen on all samples related to the victim

Unlike the State's contention that the early testimony should prevail, the Court found that without reliable corroboration or a consistent narrative, the evidence was "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable," necessitating the benefit of doubt

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence

The Respondent was discharged from his personal and surety bonds