Conviction for attempted rape cannot rest on materially contradictory, uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.

On 31 July 2003, the complainant alleged that the appellant entered her house at about 7:00 p.m., asked about her husband, and, finding her alone, forcibly attempted to rape her, assaulted and threatened her with a tangi. On hearing her alarm, her father-in-law and other persons allegedly arrived, whereupon the appellant fled

The complainant claimed that she first approached the police on 1 August 2003 and thereafter the Superintendent of Police, but no case was registered; she subsequently instituted a complaint case on 21 August 2003

The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the complainant, and produced the complaint petition. The defence relied on a written report allegedly submitted by the complainant to the police, which referred only to an irrigation-related dispute and did not mention any attempted rape

The Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara convicted the appellant under Sections 376/511 of the IPC and sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376/511 of the IPC was sustainable on the testimony of the prosecutrix and the supporting evidence on record?

Whether the material inconsistencies between the complainant’s earliest written report and the subsequent complaint and deposition, together with the delay and prior enmity, created a reasonable doubt regarding the alleged occurrence?

The Court applied Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC, concerning an attempt to commit rape.

It reiterated that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can sustain a conviction where it is wholly reliable, trustworthy, unblemished and inspires confidence.

Relying on Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana , (2011) 7 SCC 130, the Court held that the solitary testimony of a prosecutrix must be of sterling quality before it can independently form the basis of conviction

The Court further applied the principle that material contradictions, unexplained delay, a significant improvement in the prosecution version, and evidence of prior hostility may render the testimony unsafe for reliance beyond reasonable doubt

The Court found that the complainant’s earliest written report, admitted in evidence as Ext. A, described only a dispute concerning the cutting of a field ridge, irrigation water, abusive language and threats, and contained no allegation of an attempted rape

In contrast, the subsequent complaint alleged forcible removal of clothing, an attempt to penetrate, assault and threats with a tangi, while the complainant’s deposition further stated that she was found naked and that the appellant had attempted rape

The complaint was filed approximately 20 days after the alleged occurrence, and the Court noted that it was dictated by the complainant’s father-in-law after consultation with an advocate

The witnesses who allegedly arrived at the scene largely stated that they saw the appellant fleeing or leaving the house, rather than witnessing the attempted rape; moreover, several witnesses admitted existing land disputes or litigation with the appellant

Applying the requirement that the prosecutrix’s uncorroborated testimony must be wholly reliable, the Court held that her evidence suffered from material contradictions and appeared to have been exaggerated to convert an irrigation dispute into a serious criminal allegation

The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, the criminal appeal was allowed, and the appellant—being on bail—was discharged from the liability of his bail bond and sureties

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, and the trial court records were directed to be returned