Benefit of Doubt in Age Determination and Lack of Sterling Witness Testimony Warrant Acquittal in Rape Prosecution

The State appealed the acquittal of the respondent, Dilavar Singh, who was charged under Sections 342/506/376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act

The prosecution alleged that on 26.06.2013, the respondent forcibly took the victim from her home and raped her

The victim was medically examined (MLC) and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on 28.11.2019, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor and failed to established lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent abducted and raped the victim against her will?

2. Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the offence, rendering her consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act?

The court applied Section 376 IPC (Rape) and Section 4 POCSO Act (Penetrative Sexual Assault)

It relied on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the "sterling witness" standard for a prosecutrix's testimony

The court applied Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, and the principle from Court On Its Own Motion v. State of NCT of Delhi, which mandates that when using an Ossification Test, the upper age limit of the range plus a two-year margin of error must be given to the accused

The court also applied the standard of review for appeals against acquittal established in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., requiring "substantial and compelling reasons" to disturb an acquittal

The Court found the victim’s testimony failed the "sterling witness" test due to material contradictions between her Section 161, 164 statements and her court deposition

Notably, her statements fluctuated on whether she knew the respondent previously and whether she was taken by force or accompanied him voluntarily

The Court observed that despite the victim's claim of being forcibly taken, none of her siblings sleeping in the same room heard any disturbance

Regarding age, the Ossification Test placed the victim between 16-18 years; following the "double presumption of innocence" and binding precedent, the Court adopted the upper limit (18 years)

The medical evidence of minor scratches was deemed more consistent with the defense's theory of a physical altercation with parents than marks of resistance during rape

The Court held that (1) the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor, as the benefit of doubt in age estimation goes to the accused; and (2) the sexual intercourse was not proven beyond reasonable doubt to be non-consensual due to the unreliable nature of the prosecutrix's testimony

The respondent was discharged of all bail and surety bonds