Consistency of victim's testimony is vital for conviction; material improvements between statements entitle accused to benefit of doubt.

On September 13, 2013, PW2 (the victim's father) filed a missing person report alleging that his 16-year-old daughter (PW4) had been kidnapped by the appellant, Naveen

The prosecution alleged that the appellant took PW4 to Bihar and committed rape between September 12 and September 22, 2013

PW4, in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, claimed she left home voluntarily due to fear of her parents and denied any fault on the appellant's part

During the trial, she deposed that they had established "physical relations" with her consent while in Bihar

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act based on this testimony and medical evidence of a torn hymen

The appellant challenged this conviction, asserting the relationship was consensual and that they had since married

Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the consent of a minor is legally immaterial once minority is established.

Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the discharge of the accused, and the precedent Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, holds that non-compliance with Section 232 does not vitiate proceedings unless it results in "serious and substantial prejudice" to the accused.

While the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can sustain a conviction, such testimony must be of "sterling quality" and free from material improvements.

The court first addressed the procedural lapse regarding Section 232 Cr.P.C., concluding that since the appellant failed to show any prejudice, the omission did not invalidate the trial.

The court verified through school records (Ext. PW3/A) that the victim was approximately 15 years and 5 months old at the time of the incident, confirming her status as a minor under the POCSO Act.

The court noted a "material improvement" between her Section 164 statement—where she explicitly stated there was no fault on the appellant’s part and mentioned no sexual contact—and her court deposition, where she alleged physical relations.

The court reasoned that because the victim's testimony was inconsistent and failed the "sterling quality" test, it could not be the sole basis for conviction, even when coupled with medical evidence of a torn hymen.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and sentencing order, acquitted Naveen of the charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and ordered him to be set at liberty immediately.