Hostile testimony and non-examination of material witnesses vitiate conviction for attempted rape.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC for an alleged attempt to commit rape on the night of 20/21.09.2012

The informant (P.W. 5) alleged that the appellant entered her house while she was sleeping, pressed her mouth, and pushed her down, but fled when she raised an alarm, leaving behind a torch and a vest

During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the informant. However, the informant's husband, who was sleeping beside her during the incident, was not examined

P.W. 5 admitted during cross-examination that the appellant had not outraged her modesty

1. Whether the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempt to commit rape

2. Whether the non-examination of a material witness (the husband) and the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for recovered articles vitiate the prosecution's case

The Court applied Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC regarding attempt to commit rape

The Court relied on the "Sterling Witness" doctrine from Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012), which mandates that a conviction based on the sole testimony of a victim requires the evidence to be of high quality, consistent, and absolutely trustworthy

The court also applied the principle from Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka (2025) regarding the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for material objects to establish a link between the accused and the crime scene

The Court observed that P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 were hearsay witnesses who did not witness the occurrence

The case rested solely on P.W. 5, whose testimony was found unreliable because she categorically admitted in cross-examination that her modesty was not outraged, contradicting the charge under Section 376/511

The Court noted the fatal omission of the informant's husband as a witness, which invited an adverse inference

Additionally, while the non-examination of a Medical Officer is not always fatal, the lack of any medical or scientific evidence here failed to corroborate the victim's shifting version

The Court further held that the failure to conduct a TIP for the recovered torch and vest created "holes in the fabric of the prosecution story," as these items were identified for the first time in court without prior verification

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2013 and 02.09.2013 were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges