Conviction cannot be sustained where prosecutrix's testimony lacks sterling quality and forensic evidence lacks DNA semen matching.

The appellants were convicted by the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Bastar, for allegedly committing gang rape [s. 376(d), IPC] and criminal intimidation [s. 506 Part II, IPC] against a 19-year-old victim (PW-6) on 23.03.2014 in a rented house at Jagdalpur.

The prosecution alleged the appellants administered a cold drink causing dizziness before the assault.

The Trial Court sentenced them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of consent, lack of medical corroboration, and the absence of DNA matching.

1. Whether the medical and forensic evidence, specifically the lack of semen matching/DNA profiling, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape.

2. Whether the testimony of the victim (PW-6) qualifies as "sterling quality" evidence to base a conviction without corroboration.

3. Whether the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act applies to a charge under Section 376(d) of the IPC.

The Court applied Section 376(d) and 506 of the IPC regarding gang rape and intimidation.

It relied on the precedent in *Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana*, establishing that post-2006, the prosecution's failure to conduct DNA/semen matching to link the accused to the crime results in adverse consequences for the case.

Regarding witness reliability, it applied the "sterling witness" test from *Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)* and *Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar*.

Furthermore, it clarified that the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act is restricted to specific clauses of Section 376(2) and does not automatically extend to Section 376(d), citing *Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana*.

The High Court found the medical evidence inconclusive as Dr. Manish Goyal (PW-8) found no internal or external injuries and gave no definite opinion on rape.

Although the FSL report (Ex.P/28) identified human sperm on the clothes of Appellant-2 and the victim, the prosecution failed to perform DNA profiling or semen matching to link it to the specific appellants, rendering the forensic evidence "of no use" under the *Krishan Kumar Malik* rule.

Evaluating PW-6’s testimony, the Court noted several discrepancies: she traveled 30km to meet the accused without informing parents, stayed for six hours in a crowded area without raising an alarm, and later admitted in cross-examination that Appellant-2 did not commit rape but only "attempted" it.

Consequently, her testimony failed the "sterling quality" test as she appeared to be a consenting party.

The High Court set aside the judgment dated 13.05.2015, allowed the appeals, and acquitted both appellants by granting them the benefit of doubt.

The court ordered the discharge of their bail bonds after six months per Section 437-A of the CrPC.