Material inconsistencies in uncorroborated family testimony defeated proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and sentences of two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fines for each offence.

The prosecution alleged that he attempted to rape the complainant’s daughter at her home and later returned with family members and assaulted the complainant’s family.

The trial court acquitted him of the other charged offences but convicted him under Sections 354 and 451 IPC.

On appeal, the High Court considered the evidence of the daughter and her parents; no independent villager or medical witness was examined.

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix and her parents established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offence under Section 354 IPC.

2. Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed house-trespass under Section 451 IPC.

The prosecution must prove each charged offence beyond reasonable doubt.

A conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix, and independent witnesses are not indispensable, but the testimony must be of sterling quality and inspire confidence.

Section 354 IPC concerns assault or criminal force to a woman with the requisite intent or knowledge; Section 451 IPC concerns house-trespass committed to facilitate an offence punishable with imprisonment.

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) CrPC, and the appellant was directed to comply with Section 437-A CrPC.

The Court found material inconsistencies concerning whether the appellant had disrobed the prosecutrix or merely begun removing her salwar, how he escaped, and the circumstances and duration of the alleged assault.

The accounts of the prosecutrix and her parents also differed on the number of blows, duration of the incident, and whether it occurred inside or outside the house.

These were not minor discrepancies: in the absence of independent or medical corroboration, they undermined the witnesses’ credibility and left the elements of both offences unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

It directed him to furnish a personal bond under Section 437-A CrPC within two weeks, to remain in force for six months.