Material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony creating reasonable doubt require acquittal for kidnapping and rape.

The appellant was prosecuted in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 161/2005 arising from an FIR lodged by the victim’s mother, alleging that the victim had been abducted in a vehicle while proceeding to school and was subsequently recovered from the appellant’s house in Goalpara.

The case was initially registered and charge-sheeted under Section 366A of the IPC. During trial, the charge was altered to include the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(i) IPC.

The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the victim, her parents, and investigating officers, but did not examine the alleged eyewitness, Bobita/Kabita, or the medical officer.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and seven years respectively, along with fines.

The appellant challenged the conviction in appeal under Section 374 CrPC, contending that the prosecution evidence was contradictory, the victim’s testimony was unreliable, the medical evidence was absent, and her age had not been properly proved.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant abducted or kidnapped the victim, thereby attracting Section 366 IPC?

Whether the victim’s testimony regarding sexual assault was sufficiently reliable and trustworthy to sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC in the absence of medical evidence?

Whether the prosecution established that the victim was a minor at the relevant time through legally reliable evidence?

Whether the contradictions in the statements of the victim and her parents, and the non-examination of the alleged eyewitness, created a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?

The Court considered Section 374 CrPC governing appeals against conviction and Sections 366 and 376 IPC concerning kidnapping/abduction of a woman and rape.

It applied the principle that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can sustain a conviction if it is wholly reliable, trustworthy, and consistent.

The Court relied on Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, for the rule that where two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted and every reasonable doubt must operate in the accused’s favour.

It referred to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, regarding reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix where it inspires confidence.

It also considered Alamelu v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385, which holds that a school or transfer certificate may have limited evidentiary value in proving age where the person responsible for the underlying entry is not examined.

Under Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288, minor discrepancies may be disregarded, but material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case may justify rejection of the evidence.

The Court found that the victim’s evidence was materially inconsistent across her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her deposition before the Trial Court.

In particular, the allegation of rape was absent from the Section 161 statement but was introduced later; her accounts also differed regarding the manner of abduction, the persons accompanying the appellant, the duration of her stay, and whether she raised an alarm.

The parents were not eyewitnesses, and their evidence contained contradictions regarding whether the appellant was previously known to the family.

The alleged eyewitness, Bobita, was not examined, and the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the other persons allegedly present in the vehicle.

The medical officer and medical examination report were also not produced, despite the allegation of rape.

The Court further noted that the evidence regarding the victim’s age was inadequate and that the relevant school or birth records were not properly proved during investigation.

Applying the rule that conviction may rest on a prosecutrix’s testimony only when it is reliable and trustworthy, and giving the appellant the benefit of reasonable doubt under Kali Ram, the Court held that the cumulative contradictions and evidentiary deficiencies affected the core of the prosecution case rather than constituting minor discrepancies.

The victim’s testimony was not sufficiently consistent or trustworthy to support conviction, and the absence of the alleged eyewitness, medical evidence, and satisfactory proof of age further weakened the prosecution case.

Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction dated 13 May 2024 was set aside and quashed.

The appeal was allowed, the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.