Conviction for gang rape is unsustainable where victim disowns identification and medical evidence contradicts ocular testimony.

The appellants were accused of entering the victim's (PW-4) house on June 16, 2021, bolting the doors, and committing gang rape

Following an investigation, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 376-D of the IPC, sentencing them to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting them of the charge under Section 307 IPC

During the trial, PW-4 provided contradictory testimony, admitting she did not know the accused, had not seen their faces during the incident, and stated that the persons present in court were not the perpetrators

Medical evidence showed no external injuries or signs of forcible intercourse

Furthermore, there were significant delays in recording the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement and discrepancies regarding the arrest dates of the appellants

The Court applied Section 376-D of the IPC regarding gang rape

Section 164 of the CrPC concerning the mandatory guidelines for recording victim statements as established in State of Karnataka v. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna

It relied on the "sterling witness" doctrine from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), which requires a witness's version to be unassailable and consistent to sustain a conviction without corroboration

The Court also interpreted Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, noting that while a judge may ask leading questions to discover the truth, they cannot do so to fill lacunae in the prosecution’s case or suggest essential ingredients of an offence

The Court determined that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof.

It observed that PW-4’s testimony was not of sterling quality because she explicitly failed to identify the appellants in court, claiming they were not the men who attacked her

The medical evidence, handled by PW-13, contradicted the ocular version by showing a total absence of injuries and a history of only "misbehavior with hands" rather than rape

The Court found the investigation flawed due to an unexplained five-day delay in recording the victim's Section 164 statement, violating Supreme Court mandates

Critically, the Court noted that the Trial Judge improperly used Section 165 of the Evidence Act to put leading questions that suggested the commission of the offence to the victim, thereby stepping into the role of the prosecution and compromising judicial neutrality

The Court held that the cumulative effect of the non-identification by the victim, lack of medical corroboration, and procedural lapses created a substantial and reasonable doubt

The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 376-D IPC by extending the benefit of doubt and were ordered to be set at liberty immediately