Conviction for gang rape cannot be sustained where the major victim provides multiple mutually inconsistent versions.

The three appellants (A1-Anwar, A2-Anish, A3-Sandeep) were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376D IPC for the alleged gang rape of the victim (PW11) on 31.05.2013.

The prosecution alleged A1 abducted PW11 in a car while A2 and A3 restrained her, subsequently raping her in a godown.

During the trial, PW11’s testimony underwent multiple shifts: in her examination-in-chief, she supported the prosecution.

In cross-examination, she admitted to a prior consensual friendship/physical relationship with A1 and stated the complaint was filed out of fear of her father.

In re-examination, she reverted to the rape allegations citing external threats.

In final cross-examination, she admitted her re-examination testimony was false and she only deposed against the accused due to her father's pressure.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellants of abduction (Section 366 IPC) but convicted them of gang rape.

The Court applied Section 376D (Gang Rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It relied on the evidentiary standards for hostile witnesses established in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, noting that while a hostile witness's evidence isn't totally effaced, it must be scrutinized for dependability.

Regarding expert opinions, the Court followed Murari Lal v. State of M.P. and Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, which establish that expert opinion (including DNA/handwriting) is not conclusive and is generally unsafe to rely upon without substantial corroboration, as human judgment is fallible.

It also noted the limits of Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements, which are not substantive evidence but tools for contradiction or corroboration.

The High Court found that PW11 was not a reliable witness of "sterling quality" due to material and progressive alterations in her narrative across five stages of testimony.

The Court observed that once the Trial Court doubted the abduction (Section 366) and the victim admitted to a prior consensual relationship with A1, the burden to prove "lack of consent" for the sexual act became significantly heavier.

The Court rejected the prosecution's reliance on Harvinder v. State, distinguishing it on the basis that in the present case, the victim's final admission—that she deposed against the accused only due to her father's pressure—was the most recent and credible explanation for her vacillations.

Regarding the DNA evidence (Ex. PW18/PX1), the Court held that while it may prove sexual contact, it cannot prove "absence of consent" in the face of the victim's admissions of a consensual relationship.

Since PW11 was a major, the possibility of consensual intercourse could not be excluded.

The testimony of the prosecutrix was deemed self-contradictory and influenced by parental pressure.

The appeals were allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2017 were set aside, and all three appellants were acquitted.