Material inconsistencies in victim’s testimony and factual improbability of occurrence entitle the accused to acquittal.

The victim (PW1) alleged that in December 2018, while visiting the residence of her uncle (the appellant) in Tinsukia, he committed rape on her multiple times

She testified that the appellant first gagged her and later administered substances in snacks or chocolates that rendered her unconscious

Although she returned home in January 2019, the incident was only disclosed in May 2019 after a medical examination confirmed she was five months pregnant

The Trial Court (FTC-2, Tinsukia) convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC on September 13, 2024, sentencing him to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction, citing material contradictions in the victim's testimony and the prosecution's failure to examine the Investigating Officer (IO)

The court primarily applied Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the offense of rape

It relied on the precedents of Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, which establish that an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR or informing family members can be fatal to the prosecution when the sole material witness is inconsistent

Additionally, the court applied the principles from Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar and V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, emphasizing that the non-examination of an Investigating Officer (IO) is detrimental to the defense as it prevents the confrontation of material contradictions in witness statements

The High Court found that the victim provided inconsistent versions of the alleged assaults across her Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements and her trial testimony, particularly regarding the frequency and method of the assaults

The Court observed that the non-examination of the IO was a significant lapse, as it deprived the defense of the opportunity to prove these material contradictions

Furthermore, the Court deemed the victim’s narrative improbable, noting that the house lacked doors between rooms and the appellant’s entire family was present, yet no alarm was raised

The Court also highlighted the lack of scientific corroboration, such as a DNA test to establish paternity

Finally, the Court rejected the Trial Court’s speculative reasoning for the five-month delay in disclosure, noting that the victim continued to stay in the appellant's house for 15-20 days after the alleged initial assault without reporting it

The Court held that the Trial Court's findings were based on presumptions rather than solid evidence

Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction dated September 13, 2024, were set aside and quashed

The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the Court directed his immediate release from custody