Omission of rape allegations in Section 164 CrPC statement renders subsequent testimony unreliable, necessitating acquittal.

The appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 366A and 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The informant (PW-4) alleged that on the night of May 15/16, 2015, his minor daughter (PW-1) was kidnapped from their home by the appellants for illicit intercourse.

The victim was rescued on May 18, 2015, and her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded on May 20, 2015.

While she alleged gang rape in her court deposition, her initial Section 164 statement only mentioned kidnapping and omitted any mention of sexual assault or threats.

Medical examinations conducted on May 19, 2015, found no external or internal injuries, though they noted an old hymenal rupture.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment for gang rape.

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix can be considered of "sterling quality" for conviction when there are material omissions regarding the allegation of rape in her Section 164 CrPC statement?

2. Whether the medical evidence and the testimony of hearsay witnesses (family members) sufficiently corroborate the victim's allegations of forcible gang rape?

The Court applied Section 366A (procuration of minor girl) and Section 376D (gang rape) of the IPC, alongside Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

It relied on the principle from Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that a prosecutrix's evidence is on par with an injured witness but must be scrutinized for trustworthiness.

The "three categories" of witness reliability (wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither) from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras were applied.

Furthermore, the court invoked the "sterling witness" standard from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), requiring a witness's version to be unassailable and consistent from the initial statement through the trial.

The Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed due to the gross inconsistency between the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement and her trial testimony.

In the former, she failed to mention rape entirely, leading the Court to conclude the story of sexual assault was likely "subsequently manufactured".

Applying the Vadivelu Thevar classification, the Court deemed her "mostly unreliable" because of this omission.

The medical evidence (PW-9) further weakened the case, as the absence of injuries after three days of alleged repeated gang rape was inconsistent with a claim of "forcible" assault.

Additionally, the testimonies of PW-2 to PW-5 were dismissed as hearsay, as none were eyewitnesses to the kidnapping.

Since the core spectrum of the crime lacked consistency and independent corroboration, the evidence failed to meet the "sterling quality" threshold.

The Court held that the evidence on record was insufficient to support the charges as the victim’s testimony was unreliable and contradicted by medical findings.

The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith from custody.