Conviction for rape cannot rest on prosecutrix’s testimony when material contradictions undermine its reliability.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 18.08.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia, in S.T. No. 66/2016, by which he was convicted under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and one year’s rigorous imprisonment, respectively, along with fines and default sentences.

The prosecution alleged that on 19.02.2016 at about 9:00 p.m., the appellant, while intoxicated, entered the prosecutrix’s house when she was alone, raped her, and threatened her with death. Owing to fear, she left for her parents’ house the following morning, remained away for approximately two months, and later narrated the incident to a relative. She subsequently approached the police after learning that the appellant had been arrested, resulting in registration of the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet.

In appeal, the appellant argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested and related to the prosecutrix, their statements contained material contradictions and improvements, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly two months, and there was prior hostility arising from property and other disputes.

The State supported the conviction and contended that the appellant had not only committed the offence but had also threatened the prosecutrix to prevent her from reporting it.

Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix, despite the delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions, improvements, and alleged hostility between the parties, was sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC?

Whether the prosecution had proved the charge under Section 506 Part II IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Whether the appellant was entitled to acquittal on the ground that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and lacked independent corroboration?

The Court applied Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 Part II IPC, requiring the prosecution to establish the alleged sexual assault and criminal intimidation beyond reasonable doubt.

It relied on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 (2) SCC 384, for the principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix may by itself support a conviction where it inspires confidence, and that minor discrepancies or the absence of corroboration should not ordinarily defeat a reliable prosecution case.

However, relying on Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, the Court reiterated that the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix must be trustworthy, unblemished, and of sterling quality.

It further applied Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State, NCT of Delhi, (2012) 8 SCC 21, which requires a “sterling witness” to give a consistent, natural, unassailable version that withstands cross-examination and coheres with the other material evidence.

Where prior hostility is established, the evidence must be scrutinised with particular care, and conviction cannot rest on testimony that is materially inconsistent, contradicted, or uncorroborated.

The Court found that the prosecutrix’s evidence did not satisfy the standard of a reliable or sterling witness.

Although she attributed the delay in reporting to fear, she had admittedly made no immediate disclosure to the prosecution witnesses and remained silent for nearly two months.

Her account regarding the appellant’s alleged conduct at Daboh was inconsistent with her written complaint and with the testimony of P.W.2; material facts concerning the alleged assault and threats were also absent from earlier statements.

The prosecutrix claimed that threats were made through Tinku Jatav’s mobile phone and that a recording existed, but no recording was produced, the Investigating Officer was not informed of it, and Tinku did not support that assertion.

The Court further noted that the prosecution witnesses had strained relations or prior hostility with the appellant, while no independent corroboration was available.

The alleged criminal antecedents of the appellant were not established, and the fact that the prosecutrix’s locked house remained intact during her absence was considered inconsistent with the prosecution’s portrayal of the appellant as a habitual criminal intent on causing further harm.

In view of the substantial contradictions, improvements, delayed reporting, hostile relationships, and absence of reliable corroboration, the Court held that the prosecution evidence did not inspire the confidence required for conviction under either provision.

The conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Since he was in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Copies of the judgment were directed to be sent to the concerned jail authority and trial court, and any fine already deposited was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.