Hostile victim testimony and lack of recent medical symptoms vitiate conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The Appellant was convicted by the trial court for kidnapping and committing repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim (aged 16 at the time of the FIR) under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The FIR was lodged by the victim's mother after the girl went missing in November 2020.

During the trial, the victim (P.W. 1) turned hostile, denying the kidnapping and alleging she was in a love relationship with the Appellant and was above 18 years of age.

Post-conviction, the Appellant appealed, asserting that the medical evidence was inconclusive and that the victim had since married him and borne two children.

1. Whether the victim was a minor under the age of 18 at the time of the occurrence.

2. Whether the Appellant kidnapped the victim from lawful guardianship without consent.

3. Whether the Appellant committed repeated rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl.

4. Whether the subsequent marriage and settling of the parties warrant a reversal of the conviction.

The court applied Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding criminal appeals.

The court relied on the standard of proof for circumstantial evidence, requiring an unbroken chain of events to prove guilt when witnesses turn hostile.

Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

Principles from Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. [2025 SCC Online SC 614] and Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra [2025 SCC Online SC 1415], establishing that the court must consider the peace and stability of the parties if they have settled into a happy marital life.

While the court upheld the finding that the victim was a minor (approx. 17 years old) based on school records, it found the evidence for kidnapping and rape insufficient.

The victim turned hostile and denied the occurrence.

The court noted that the medical officer (P.W. 4) reported no signs of recent sexual intercourse and admitted that the hymeneal tear could be caused by heavy exercise. The "confessional statements" allegedly made to the doctor were deemed inadmissible as judicial confessions.

The court reasoned that continuing the punishment would serve no meaningful purpose and would instead disturb the stability of the victim's current family and conjugal life, noting the parties had married and had two children.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 11.02.2025, and ordered the Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith.

The court directed the victim to refund the compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 to the District Legal Services Authority.