Sole testimony of prosecutrix must be of sterling quality to sustain conviction for rape.

The Prosecutrix (PW-1), a 30-year-old married woman employed as a school teacher, alleged that on 05/07/2019, while seeking assistance for school-related work, she visited the residence of the Appellant, a fellow teacher

She alleged that the Appellant forcibly established sexual relations with her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident

The written complaint was filed on 26/07/2019, leading to an FIR after a delay of approximately 20 days

The Trial Court (Special Judge, Gariaband) convicted the Appellant under Sections 376(1) and 506 (Part II) of the IPC, sentencing him to 10 years and 1 year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively

The Appellant challenged this conviction, asserting that the allegations were false, the delay was unexplained, and the Prosecutrix was a consenting party with whom he had previously traveled to Odisha

1. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the Prosecutrix is of "sterling quality" sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC

2. Whether the unexplained delay of 20 days in filing the FIR, coupled with the conduct of the Prosecutrix, creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case

The Court primarily applied Sections 376(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

It relied on the principle established in Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443, which mandates that while a conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished, and of "sterling quality"

The Court further referenced Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 to emphasize that the prosecutrix’s version must inspire confidence

Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 92 regarding the evaluation of evidence in sexual offense cases

The Court observed that the Prosecutrix was a mature, well-educated woman who continued her professional duties and remained in regular telephonic contact with her husband (PW-3) and father-in-law (PW-5) during the 20-day interval following the alleged incident, yet failed to disclose the matter to them or her colleagues

It was noted that no medical or chemical evidence supported the prosecution due to the significant delay in reporting

Critically, the Prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination that she had voluntarily traveled to Dharmagarh, Odisha, with the Appellant and her son in March 2019

The Court found that the lack of resistance, the absence of any "hue and cry" despite neighbors being nearby, and the Prosecutrix's subsequent conduct were inconsistent with a victim of non-consensual sexual assault

Applying the "sterling witness" test, the Court determined that the Prosecutrix’s testimony was riddled with doubt and lacked the requisite credibility to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to the unreliable nature of the solitary testimony and the unexplained delay in reporting the incident

The Appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from his bail bonds after complying with the requirements of Section 437-A of the CrPC