Inconsistencies in Testimony and GPS Alibi Negating Prosecution’s Case Entitle Accused to Benefit of Doubt

The Appellants (A1 and A2) were convicted by the Trial Court for gang rape, abduction, assault, and robbery (Sections 365, 376D, 323, 506, 392/34 IPC).

The prosecution alleged that on the night of 14.11.2017, the victim (PW2) boarded A2’s taxi at Ansal Plaza, was joined by A1, and taken to Greater Noida where she was raped and robbed.

The defense contended the sexual encounter was consensual and that PW2 had filed a false case to extort money.

The Trial Court relied on the victim's testimony and a presumption of lack of consent.

The Appellants challenged the conviction based on material inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, GPS data contradicting the location of abduction, and the recovery of the mobile phone.

1. Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants for gang rape and other offences are sustainable in light of the evidence on record.

2. Whether the presumption of lack of consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable to a charge under Section 376D of the IPC.

The Court primarily applied Section 376D (Gang Rape) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC.

The Court clarified that the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act is restricted to specific clauses under Section 376(2) and does not automatically apply to Section 376D.

Regarding the First Information Report, the Court applied T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which holds that only the earliest information regarding a cognizable offence constitutes the FIR, and subsequent statements are mere Section 161 CrPC statements.

On the appreciation of a victim's testimony, the Court relied on Rajoo v. State of M.P. and Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that while a victim’s testimony is vital, it is not "gospel truth" and must be scrutinized against probabilities and material contradictions.

Finally, the Court applied Section 90 of the IPC regarding the nature of "consent" as an act of reason and deliberation.

The Court found that the Trial Court erroneously treated a subsequent statement (Ext. PW2/A) as the FIR, whereas the actual earliest statement (Ext. PW15/A) contained significant contradictions regarding the use of a weapon.

The Court highlighted that the victim’s claim of being abducted from Ansal Plaza at 11:00 PM was scientifically disproven by GPS logs (Ext. PW6/C), which placed the vehicle in Greater Noida, 30km away, at that exact time.

The Court further noted that Call Detail Records (CDRs) showed 19 calls between the victim and her husband during the alleged assault, contradicting the husband's claim that the phone was switched off.

The prosecution’s failure to recover the alleged stolen gold ornaments, the lack of independent witnesses for the phone recovery, and the absence of the alleged "objectionable video" in the seized device further weakened the case.

Lastly, the Court observed that the Trial Court's reliance on a Section 114A presumption was legally misplaced for a Section 376D charge.

The Court answered the primary issue in the negative, granting the Appellants the benefit of the doubt. The appeals were allowed, the conviction dated 10.12.2020 was set aside, and A1 and A2 were acquitted of all charges under Sections 365, 376D, 323, 506, and 392 read with 34 of the IPC.