Inconsistencies in prosecutrix's testimony and contradicting parental evidence necessitate acquittal in sexual assault cases.

The appellant was convicted by a Special POCSO Court for rape and penetrative sexual assault under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that in late 2015, the appellant twice administered an intoxicant in a cold drink to the prosecutrix (PW1), then aged approximately 16, and committed sexual assault while she was unconscious.

The appellant maintained his innocence, claiming the charges were a result of a family feud following his family's refusal to approve a marriage between him and PW1.

Procedurally, the appellant challenged the trial court's judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2022 and the subsequent sentencing order.

1. Whether there were material inconsistencies and embellishments in the testimony of the prosecutrix that rendered her evidence unreliable.

2. Whether the medical evidence (MLC) was sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of credible ocular testimony.

3. Whether the prosecution established the age of the victim and the commission of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court applied Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code regarding rape and Section 4 of the POCSO Act concerning penetrative sexual assault.

It also referenced Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which mandates that where an act constitutes an offense under both the IPC and POCSO, the offender shall be punished under the law that provides for the greater degree of punishment.

The judgment relied on the evidentiary principle that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such testimony must be consistent, credible, and inspire confidence; where material contradictions exist, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

The High Court found significant discrepancies between the prosecutrix’s FIR, her Section 164 statement, and her court testimony regarding the location of the incidents and the identity of the person who provided the drugged drink.

Specifically, the witness shifted her account from the "mausi’s house" to a "bua’s house" and eventually claimed a third party ("fufa") provided the drink, creating confusion regarding the accused's role.

The Court further noted a conflict between PW1 and her mother (PW11) regarding the timeline of reporting to the police.

Regarding the medical evidence, the Court determined that the findings of a torn hymen were not conclusive proof of sexual assault in the absence of reliable ocular evidence.

The Court observed the "strange" conduct of the victim in voluntarily returning to the accused and consuming a drink a second time after allegedly being drugged and raped previously.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty.