Conviction Under Section 376D IPC Is Untenable Where Testimony Fails Sterling Quality and Lacks Medical Corroboration

The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 376D of the IPC and the resulting 20-year sentence.

The victim (PW-3), a married woman, alleged that on 18.03.2021, while attending the call of nature, the appellants gang-raped her at gunpoint and knifepoint in a field.

The FIR was registered on 20.03.2021.

The medical officer (PW-4) found internal injuries absent and no signs of forceful sexual act, noting only old hymen rupture and superficial abrasions.

One witness turned hostile (PW-1), and the husband's (PW-2) testimony was based on hearsay.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants relying primarily on the victim's testimony and Section 114A of the Evidence Act.

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix qualifies as that of a "sterling witness" sufficient for conviction in the absence of corroboration.

2. Whether the lack of medical corroboration and significant investigative lapses (failure to seize clothes or conduct a site map) create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.

3. Whether the unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, despite the husband's availability, is fatal to the prosecution.

The court primarily applied Section 376D of the IPC regarding gang rape.

It relied on the "sterling witness" doctrine from Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), which requires a witness's version to be unassailable and consistent with scientific evidence.

It further applied the principle from Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, holding that if a prosecutrix's version is unsupported by medical evidence or is improbable, the court should not act on solitary evidence.

The court also referenced Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar regarding the effect of delayed FIRs and lack of medical corroboration in rape cases.

The Court found the victim (PW-3) failed the "sterling witness" test due to material contradictions between her testimony, her Section 164 CrPC statement, and the written report.

Specifically, the medical evidence directly contradicted her claims of forceful assault and internal injuries; PW-4 explicitly stated no signs of forceful sexual act were found.

The investigation was deemed perfunctory as the I.O. failed to seize the victim’s clothes, prepare a sketch map, or examine the field owners.

Furthermore, the two-day delay in filing the FIR remained unexplained, despite the husband (PW-2) being only 6km away, which raised suspicions of fabrication.

The cumulative effect of these lapses—contradictory medical evidence, perfunctory investigation, and delayed FIR—rendered the prosecution's story improbable.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment dated 11.05.2023 and the sentencing order dated 17.05.2023. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith. Both appeals were allowed.