Material contradictions in the victim’s testimony warranted acquittal where prosecution evidence lacked cogency and reliability.

On 25 January 2009, the prosecutrix alleged that, while returning home after fetching water, the appellant approached her from behind, touched and held her hands and chest with improper intent, tore her blouse, broke her bangle and struck her near the abdomen. She informed her husband after he returned from duty and lodged the report at Police Station Dharseewa on 26 January 2009

The police investigated the matter, medically examined the prosecutrix, seized relevant articles, arrested the appellant and filed a charge-sheet

The appellant was charged under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The trial court convicted him under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500, with two months’ further rigorous imprisonment in default

In appeal, the appellant challenged the appreciation of evidence and relied on contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC against the prosecutrix?

Whether the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony, together with the non-eyewitness nature of the supporting evidence, rendered the conviction unsafe?

The court applied Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage, or knowledge that the act is likely to outrage, her modesty.

The court also applied the general criminal-law principle that the prosecution must establish the charge through cogent and reliable evidence, and that a conviction cannot be sustained where the principal testimony contains material contradictions on the occurrence and identity of the offender.

The charges under Sections 323 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were framed at trial, but the appellate conviction under consideration was under Section 354 IPC

The High Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s evidence. In examination-in-chief, she stated that the appellant came from behind, caught her and tore her blouse, and that her bangle broke when he caught her hand; after being declared hostile, she further stated that he had caught her hand and chest with improper intent

However, in cross-examination, she stated that she was seeing the appellant for the first time in court and admitted that he had neither assaulted nor molested her

The court treated this as a complete contradiction on the essential question of whether the appellant had committed the alleged act.

The husband and the prosecutrix’s brother were not eyewitnesses; their evidence was based only on what the prosecutrix or another person allegedly told them.

Their testimony also referred inconsistently to an allegation of rape, whereas the charge against the appellant concerned molestation under Section 354 IPC

In the absence of consistent and reliable evidence proving the occurrence and the appellant’s involvement, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

As he was on bail, his bail bonds were discharged and he was not required to surrender