Sole Witness Testimony Lacking Credibility and Medical Corroboration Insufficient for Conviction in Rape Case

In brief

The question

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of a prosecutrix who subsequently retracted her allegations via affidavit and oral statement

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the conviction was unsustainable due to the inconsistent and unreliable nature of the victim's testimony

It also directed

The Gauhati High Court set aside and quashed the judgment and sentence dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhemaji. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds were discharged

While the court noted the victim's actions rendered her liable for perjury, it refrained from directing prosecution due to her social background and family status

01Facts

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, on 22.08.2024 for offences under Sections 341 and 376 of the IPC and sentenced to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that on 23.02.2017, the appellant intercepted the victim while she was walking home and forcibly committed rape

p. 3

During the trial, the victim (PW-1) supported the prosecution's case, while the medical officer (PW-2) found no signs of violence or forceful intercourse, though the victim was noted to be six months pregnant

pp. 5-6

Following conviction, the victim filed an affidavit during the appeal process stating that the FIR was based on "mistaken facts" and that she shared an intimate, consensual relationship with the appellant

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of a prosecutrix who subsequently retracted her allegations via affidavit and oral statement

p. 6, 9

ii.2. Whether the prosecution proved the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt in light of contradictory medical evidence and the victim's admission of a consensual relationship

p. 8

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 376 (Punishment for rape) and Section 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

pp. 2-3

It relied on the settled legal principle that while a conviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, such testimony must "inspire the confidence of the Court"

p. 6

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that if a prosecutrix's version undergoes substantial variations that go to the root of the case, it is unsafe to rely on her testimony without independent corroboration

p. 9

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 341 Section 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The court observed that the trial court's conviction rested exclusively on the testimony of PW-1

p. 6

However, the victim’s subsequent affidavit dated 23.05.2025 and her in-camera interaction with the High Court revealed that the allegations of rape were false and motivated by a family dispute

p. 7, 9

The court noted that the medical evidence (PW-2) corroborated the victim's later claim of consent, as there were no marks of violence or signs of struggle

p. 6, 8

The court found the victim’s shifting stands—from alleging rape in the FIR/trial to admitting a consensual relationship in the affidavit, and finally denying any sexual relationship during the in-camera hearing—rendered her testimony wholly unreliable

p. 9

Consequently, the court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the absence of consent or any other foundational ingredient of Section 376 IPC

p. 8

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the conviction was unsustainable due to the inconsistent and unreliable nature of the victim's testimony

p. 10

pp. 10-11

While the court noted the victim's actions rendered her liable for perjury, it refrained from directing prosecution due to her social background and family status

p. 11

LawLens.Gauhati High Court

Original Court PDF