Conviction for rape unsustainable where victim’s testimony lacks sterling quality and evidence suggests consensual conduct.

The victim, aged approximately 20 years, alleged that on 08.11.2003, while her parents were away, the appellant forcibly dragged her from her courtyard to a nearby field and committed rape.

The victim informed her brother and parents upon their return, and a village meeting (Panchayat) was subsequently convened where the appellant denied the allegations.

An FIR was lodged on 16.11.2003, resulting in an eight-day delay.

On 31.03.2005, the District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, convicted the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 506-B of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this judgment, contending that the FIR was delayed, medical evidence was negative, and the victim’s testimony was not of "sterling quality".

1. Whether a conviction can be recorded based on the sole testimony of the victim if it lacks "sterling quality".

2. Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 376 and 506-B of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Sections 376 (Rape) and 506-B (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the "sterling witness" doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2020) and Nirmal Premkumar v. State (2024).

This principle holds that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be "unassailable," "absolutely trustworthy," and "unblemished".

If the testimony contains material contradictions or lacks corroboration where expected, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The High Court found the victim’s testimony (PW-11) failed the test of a "sterling witness" due to several inconsistencies and improbable circumstances.

First, although the incident occurred near inhabited houses, no alarm was raised or heard.

Second, the victim claimed her mouth was gagged but admitted her legs were free, yet no signs of struggle or injuries were recorded in the medical report.

Third, the conduct of the parties post-incident strongly suggested consent; the victim’s mother (PW-1) and brothers (PW-2, PW-7) admitted that the victim and accused were caught together in a room days after the alleged rape and that the victim voluntarily lived with the appellant for 8–10 days.

Furthermore, the victim admitted she would not have filed the FIR had the appellant agreed to "keep her".

Finally, the medical examination found the victim habitual to sexual intercourse, and the FSL report was negative for the presence of semen or blood on the exhibited articles.

The Court held that the solitary version of the victim could not be taken as "gospel truth" as it was contradicted by medical evidence and the subsequent conduct of the parties.

Extending the benefit of doubt, the Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 376 and 506-B of the IPC and discharged his bail bonds.