Inconsistencies in Testimony and Conflicting Medical Evidence Rebut DNA-Based Corroboration to Vitiate Conviction for Rape

The Appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Panaji, for allegedly raping the victim (PW1) on July 30, 2023, in a hotel room in Arpora.

The victim, aged 18, alleged she went to the hotel with a friend (PW4), where the Appellant joined them. She claimed she woke from a nap to find the Appellant partially nude on top of her.

There was a 48-hour delay in filing the FIR, during which an altercation occurred between the families and a demand for ₹5,000,00/- was allegedly made by the victim to settle the matter.

The Appellant was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. He challenged the conviction on grounds of contradictory testimony, medical evidence timing, and lack of identification.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and the 48-hour delay.

2. Whether the medical evidence and DNA profile were sufficient to sustain the conviction despite contrary findings regarding the timing of the injury.

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the offence of rape.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning expert opinions, noting that DNA evidence is corroborative rather than substantive.

Malkhansingh v. State of MP, establishing that dock identification of a stranger without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) is inherently weak.

Prakash Nishad alias Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra and Rahul v. State of Delhi, clarifying that DNA evidence is not infallible and its probative value varies based on potential contamination and the presence of other cogent evidence.

The Court found the victim's testimony unreliable as she shifted her narrative from "attempt to rape" in the complaint to "completed intercourse" in later statements.

The 48-hour delay in filing the FIR was poorly explained and coincided with an alleged extortion attempt.

The medical report noted a "fresh" hymenal tear within 12 hours of the exam, yet the incident supposedly occurred 48 hours prior, effectively contradicting the prosecution's timeline.

Regarding identification, the lack of a TIP made the "dock identification" weak, especially since CCTV footage showed the Appellant in the parking lot but never entering the hotel reception or rooms.

The DNA evidence, while matching the Appellant’s profile on a bedsheet, was deemed inconclusive because the bedsheet was seized 48 hours later from a room that had already been cleaned, and the presence of stains was explained by the fact that the Appellant and PW4 (his alleged girlfriend) had also been using the same bed.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence, and ordered the Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith.