Inconsistent testimony of a prosecutrix and lack of medical corroboration negate the charge of gang rape.

The prosecution alleged that on May 31, 2013, the three appellants (A1, A2, and A3) abducted the victim (PW11) in a Santro car from outside her house and gang-raped her in a godown in Kamruddin Nagar.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 376D IPC but acquitted them of abduction under Section 366 IPC, noting doubts about whether the victim went voluntarily.

During the trial, the victim’s testimony fluctuated significantly: she initially supported the prosecution.

She then admitted to a consensual friendship and physical relationship with A1.

Then claimed her hostile turn was due to threats.

And finally admitted that her accusations were made under pressure from her father to protect family reputation.

The FSL report confirmed the presence of the appellants' DNA on the victim's clothing.

1. Whether the conviction for gang rape under Section 376D IPC can be sustained when the prosecutrix repeatedly changed her version of events during cross-examination and re-examination.

2. Whether DNA evidence (expert opinion) can form the sole basis for conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony regarding lack of consent.

The court applied Section 376D of the IPC regarding gang rape and Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. regarding statements before a Magistrate.

It relied on *Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab*, which establishes cross-examination as the "acid test" for truthfulness.

And *Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab*, holding that while a hostile witness's evidence is not entirely effaced, it must be scrutinized for dependability.

Regarding expert evidence, the court applied principles from *Murari Lal v. State of M.P.* and *Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab*, which mandate that expert opinions (under Sections 45 & 46 of the Evidence Act) are not conclusive and usually require substantial corroboration because human judgment is fallible.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s reliance on PW11’s testimony flawed due to material and substantive oscillations.

The Court noted that PW11 admitted her initial testimony and re-examination were "false" and motivated by fear of her father.

Since the Trial Court had already doubted the abduction element (Section 366 IPC), the burden to prove "lack of consent" became heavier.

The High Court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on *Harvinder v. State*, noting that in this case, the victim’s contradictions were not "lone aberrations" but fundamental shifts regarding the core issue of consent.

Regarding the DNA evidence, the Court held that while the science is precise, it only proves sexual contact, not the absence of consent—an essential element of rape for a major victim.

The Court concluded that if two views are possible (consensual vs. forced), the view favoring the accused must prevail.

It held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was of poor quality and lacked the "sterling" character required for a sole-witness conviction.

The conviction and 20-year sentence passed by the Trial Court were set aside.

The appellants (Anwar, Sandeep, and Anish Kumar) were acquitted of the charge under Section 376D IPC and ordered to be set at liberty.