Inconsistency in prosecutrix's testimony and unexplained delay in FIR justify acquittal in rape allegations.

The Appellant (prosecutrix) challenged the judgment dated April 16, 2024, passed by the Special Court, Surajpur, which acquitted Respondent No. 2 of charges under Sections 376, 323, and 506-B of the IPC.

The prosecutrix alleged that on April 13, 2023, the accused (her uncle-in-law) picked her up in a Bolero car under the pretext of dropping her at her son’s school, took her to Silfili forest, assaulted her with a stick, cut her hair with scissors, and committed forcible sexual intercourse.

Medical evidence noted seven injuries and confirmed the presence of spermatozoa.

However, the Trial Court found the prosecutrix's testimony unreliable due to material contradictions, a five-day delay in filing the FIR, and her admission of a prior pending rape complaint against another individual.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by acquitting the accused despite the medical evidence and the testimony of the prosecutrix.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix met the standard of a "sterling witness" to sustain a conviction without further corroboration.

The Court primarily applied Section 376 (Rape), Section 323 (Voluntary hurt), and Section 506-B (Criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

It invoked Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the presumption of absence of consent in certain sexual offences.

The Court relied on the "sterling witness" doctrine established in *Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)* and reiterated in *Ganesan v. State*.

Furthermore, it followed the principles governing appeals against acquittal as summarized in *Mallappa v. State of Karnataka*, which mandate that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail unless the Trial Court's view is perverse.

The High Court observed that for a conviction to be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, she must qualify as a "sterling witness"—one whose version is of such high quality and consistency that it can be accepted without hesitation.

Reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the prosecutrix’s conduct was inconsistent with her allegations; she failed to seek help from taxi passengers or school staff and did not disclose the incident to her husband immediately.

The Court noted significant contradictions and omissions in her statements which rendered her testimony unreliable.

While medical reports showed injuries, the Court determined that the Trial Court’s finding of a "consensual" or "doubtful" encounter was a plausible view.

Under the *Mallappa* framework, the appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely because a different view is possible, provided the Trial Court's reasoning is legally sound.

The High Court found no patent illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 was upheld.