Glaring infirmities in prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

The conviction arose from the victim’s allegation that the petitioner, her nephew, had forcibly had sexual intercourse with her while she was sleeping at home.

The Sessions Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

He challenged both decisions in revision, alleging that the evidence had been perversely assessed

1. Whether the evidence, assessed in revision, could sustain the concurrent findings of guilt under Section 376 IPC

2. Whether the prosecution had established the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of the alleged contradictions and infirmities in the evidence

Section 376 IPC governs the offence of rape.

The Court referred to Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, as outlining the limits of revisional jurisdiction

It nevertheless stated that it could scrutinize the evidence to determine whether, taken at face value, it could support the conclusions reached by the lower courts

The prosecution was required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The Court found material weaknesses in the evidence: the mother-in-law’s testimony did not identify the alleged offender; the victim’s son, who was nearby, did not hear her cries; and the victim stated that she did not wish to proceed with the case.

The victim also testified that she was illiterate and that the FIR had neither been read over nor explained to her, while the Court identified material contradictions and glaring infirmities in the prosecution evidence.

It concluded that the lower courts had failed to account for these matters and that the evidence did not reliably establish the petitioner’s guilt

It acquitted him of the charge under Section 376 IPC, allowed the criminal revision, and disposed of the pending interlocutory applications.