Inconsistency in testimony and lack of forensic corroboration vitiate conviction for rape and house-trespass.

In the intervening night of September 1–2, 2012, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-1) discovered the Appellant, a stranger to her, inside her house

The Appellant fled, and the prosecutrix followed him; they were later apprehended by police

An FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 452 of the IPC based on the prosecutrix’s initial statement (Ex.PW-2/A) alleging forceful sexual assault

However, in her subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-2/B), the prosecutrix claimed she had a consensual relationship, had invited the Appellant to the house, and ran away with him voluntarily to marry him

Educational records and a matriculation certificate established the prosecutrix's date of birth as August 27, 1996, making her 16 years and 6 days old at the time of the incident

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 376 and 457 IPC, sentencing him to 7 years and 4 years of simple imprisonment, respectively

1. Whether the Appellant committed "criminal trespass" under Section 457 IPC given the allegedly consensual nature of his entry into the premises

2. Whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "rape" under Section 375 IPC (pre-amendment) considering the prosecutrix’s age and varied statements regarding consent

The court primarily applied the pre-2013 amendment definition of "Rape" under Section 375 of the IPC, where the age of consent was 16 years

Regarding age determination, the court followed the hierarchy of evidence established under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, prioritizing matriculation certificates and school records

It relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State to apply these juvenile age-determination rules to victims

the court applied the principle from P. Yuvaprakash v. State regarding the evidentiary value of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements in ascertaining the truth of allegations

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh regarding the requirement for a prosecutrix's testimony to be of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction without corroboration

The Court found that as per school and matriculation records, the prosecutrix was over 16 years old on the date of the incident, meaning she was legally capable of giving consent under the then-applicable law

The Court noted significant inconsistencies between the prosecutrix’s FIR statement, her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and her testimony in court, concluding that her evidence was not of "sterling quality"

Specifically, the Section 164 statement and CWC records indicated she had invited the Appellant and was a willing participant

This neutralized the charge of "criminal trespass" under Section 457, as the entry was not "stealthy" but permitted by an occupant

Forensic evidence (FSL) was inconclusive, as no semen was detected on the exhibits, and the medical examination (MLC) showed no signs of struggle or injury

The Court determined that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and her varied narratives failed to prove used force or a "promise to marry" as a tool for deception

The Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 457 IPC. The Appellant was acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds were discharged.