Inconsistent testimony and failed DNA evidence do not vitiate conviction if the victim's core testimony remains credible.

The appellant was accused of repeatedly raping the victim, aged approximately 17, over eight months by threatening her with a weapon (dao).

The matter came to light when the victim’s sister discovered she was eight months pregnant.

Following a village meeting where the appellant allegedly confessed and briefly cohabited with the victim, the settlement failed, leading to an FIR on July 4, 2022.

The Trial Court found that while the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor (exempting POCSO Act charges), the evidence supported a conviction for rape under the IPC.

The appellant challenged the conviction based on a 7-8 month delay in filing the FIR, contradictions in the victim's testimony, and procedural flaws in the DNA evidence.

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the frequency of the assault rendered her evidence unreliable.

2. Whether the failure of the DNA evidence to meet legal standards necessitated an acquittal despite direct testimony.

3. Whether the sexual intercourse was consensual, given the victim’s silence over an extended period.

The court applied Section 376(2) of the IPC regarding aggravated rape.

It relied on Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates a presumption of lack of consent in rape prosecutions where sexual intercourse is proved and the victim states she did not consent.

The court cited Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, requiring testimony to be of "sterling quality".

The court cited Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra regarding variations in versions.

For the DNA evidence, it applied the principle from Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, asserting that while positive DNA is clinching, a negative or flawed DNA result does not automatically result in the failure of the prosecution if other evidence is sufficient.

The Court reasoned that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the victim's fear arising from the appellant's threats to her bedridden father and the subsequent unsuccessful attempt at a village settlement.

Applying State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh, the court held that sexual assault delays cannot be equated with other offences.

The court found the victim's testimony regarding the initial assault and lack of consent to be consistent and corroborated by the appellant's own admissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and extra-judicial confessions to five independent village witnesses (PW5, 8, 9, 10, 11).

The court dismissed the DNA procedural flaws, noting that direct evidence from the victim, which remained unshaken during cross-examination, was sufficient to sustain the conviction even without forensic corroboration.

The court held that the presumption of no consent under Section 114A of the Evidence Act remained unrebutted by the defense.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s judgment sentencing the appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 376(2) IPC was upheld.