Material improvements in prosecutrix's testimony and lack of medical corroboration entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, for attempted rape under Sections 376/511 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on August 14, 2007, the victim (PW-6) went to a maize field to attend the call of nature, where the appellant followed her, pushed her down, and attempted to commit rape

The victim claimed the appellant fled after she raised an alarm

During trial, several prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) turned hostile

The appellant contended he was falsely implicated due to an ongoing boundary wall dispute between agnates

1. Whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient for conviction given material improvements and lack of medical corroboration.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt in light of an admitted land dispute.

The court applied Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC regarding the definition and punishment for rape

It relied on the "Sterling Witness" principle from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), establishing that a victim's testimony must be of high quality, consistent, and unassailable to sustain a conviction without corroboration

Further, it applied Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand regarding the impact of non-examination of medical officers

Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, which held that a conviction cannot stand if the prosecutrix's testimony contains significant lacunae or material variations from the FIR

The Court observed that while the FIR only alleged the appellant pushed the victim down, her court testimony (PW-6) included major escalations—specifically that he shut her mouth, undid her saree, and mounted her

The Court determined these were "material improvements" rather than minor discrepancies

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine the Medical Officer, leaving no objective evidence of the alleged physical struggle or attempt

The Court found that the existing land dispute between the parties provided a potential motive for false implication, requiring "greater care and circumspection" in evaluating the evidence

Since the prosecutrix's testimony failed the "sterling witness" test due to inconsistencies between the FIR and her oral deposition, the chain of evidence was deemed broken

It answered that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not of "sterling quality" and was unreliable due to significant variations

The Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2013 and the sentence dated 26.04.2013, acquitting the appellant of all charges and discharging him from his bail bonds

The appeal was allowed