Benefit of doubt must be granted where victim’s testimony lacks sterling quality and material witnesses are withheld.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 363, 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly kidnapping and raping a 13-year-old girl on April 17, 2018

The prosecution case, initiated by the victim's father (PW-2), alleged that the Appellant enticed the victim away with the intent to marry her

The victim (PW-3) testified that she was forcibly married at a temple and then taken to Ranchi, where she was kept in a rented room

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of material contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence

1. Whether the testimony of the victim (PW-3) satisfies the legal standard of a "sterling witness" to sustain a conviction

2. Whether the prosecution proved the charges of kidnapping and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions between witnesses and the absence of key independent evidence

3. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act can be invoked in the absence of established foundational facts

The court applied Section 363 (kidnapping) and Section 376 (rape) of the IPC, alongside Section 4 of the POCSO Act

It relied on the "sterling witness" doctrine established in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), which requires a witness's testimony to be of such high quality that it inspires absolute confidence without the need for corroboration

The court considered Section 29 of the POCSO Act regarding the presumption of guilt, provided foundational facts are proved by the prosecution

Section 42 of the POCSO Act regarding the prohibition of double punishment for the same act

The High Court found that the victim (PW-3) was not a "sterling witness" due to significant inconsistencies. While PW-3 claimed only she and her grandmother were present during the kidnapping, her uncle (PW-4) claimed to be an eyewitness who was assaulted by the Appellant, yet the grandmother was never examined and no medical reports supported the uncle's alleged injuries

The informant (PW-2) admitted he signed the FIR blindly at the police’s direction, casting doubt on the fardbeyan's authenticity

Notably, the Investigating Officer failed to investigate the alleged crime scene in Ranchi or examine any independent neighbors or relatives, despite the victim allegedly being dragged through the village

While the medical report (PW-5) showed an abrasion, the doctor clarified there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, and the examination occurred weeks after the alleged incident, making it impossible to link the injury definitively to the Appellant

Due to the lack of evidence of "sterling" quality and the failure to examine material witnesses (the grandmother and IO), the Trial Court's judgment was found unsustainable

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated April 29, 2024, and ordered the Appellant’s immediate release from judicial custody