An inconsistent victim’s testimony, unsupported by medical and investigative evidence, cannot sustain conviction.

The victim/informant alleged that on 29 October 2016, while returning after visiting Kayamnagar, two boys took her on a motorcycle on the assurance that they would drop her home and brought her to a boring room near Ramsahar Bagicha. She alleged that the appellant, Govind Singh and Chandan Kumar attempted to sexually assault her, while Govind Singh committed rape; upon her raising an alarm, villagers arrived, Chandan was apprehended and the appellant and Govind fled.

The police registered the case under Sections 376D, 379 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and subsequently filed a chargesheet.

The trial court did not find the victim’s minority proved for purposes of the POCSO Act but convicted the appellant under Section 376D IPC and sentenced him to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000.

The appellant challenged the conviction, relying on contradictions in the victim’s testimony, delay in transmission of the FIR, deficiencies in the investigation, absence of medical/scientific corroboration and the defence evidence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s participation in gang rape under Section 376D IPC beyond reasonable doubt, principally on the basis of the victim’s testimony.

2. Whether the delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional court, together with other investigative deficiencies, undermined the prosecution case.

3. Whether the material inconsistencies between the victim’s written information, Section 164 CrPC statement and trial testimony rendered her evidence unreliable and unsafe to act upon without corroboration.

4. Whether the medical and forensic evidence corroborated the allegation of rape and the prosecution version.

The Court applied Section 376D IPC, which requires proof of participation by one or more persons acting as members of a group or in furtherance of their common intention in the commission of gang rape.

Although conviction in a sexual-offence case may rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must be wholly reliable and may be acted upon without corroboration only where the witness qualifies as a “sterling witness,” as explained in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21.

The Court relied on Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, and Chotkau v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 742, for the principle that unexplained delay in transmitting the FIR under Section 157 CrPC may raise a suspicion of ante-timing, deliberation or embellishment, although delay is not automatically fatal.

The Court also applied the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence and the rule that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; statutory presumptions do not eliminate the prosecution’s initial burden, as recognised in Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189, Latu Das v. State of Assam, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 5947, and Ramanand v. State of U.P., AIR 2022 SC 5273.

The Court found that the victim’s account contained material, rather than minor, inconsistencies. Her written information referred to two boys taking her on a motorcycle, whereas her Section 164 CrPC statement referred to five persons and did not name any accused.

Her account of having gone to Kayamnagar for photography conflicted with her trial statement that she had remained at a friend’s house in Birampur because the photography shop was closed.

She also gave inconsistent evidence regarding her acquaintance with Chandan and the respective acts attributed to the accused.

The Court considered the alleged conduct of the adult victim in voluntarily sitting on a motorcycle with unknown persons and going to a secluded place to be improbable in the circumstances.

The FIR was registered approximately ten hours after the alleged occurrence and was apparently placed before the Special Judge nearly five days later, without an adequate explanation.

The investigating officer did not satisfactorily establish the second place of occurrence, did not seize the alleged motorcycle, did not record relevant distances or directions, and no independent witness was produced.

The medical witness found no objective sign of rape, while the FSL report detected neither blood nor semen on the red salwar; moreover, the victim stated that she had been wearing black trousers, creating further doubt regarding the seizure material.

In view of these cumulative deficiencies, the victim was not considered a sterling witness and her uncorroborated testimony could not safely sustain conviction.

The judgment of conviction dated 1 July 2023 and order of sentence dated 10 July 2023 were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

Since the appellant was in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

A copy of the judgment and trial court records was directed to be transmitted to the trial court, and the appointed legal-aid counsel was awarded ₹15,000 by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.