Survivor’s refusal to identify co-accused in court creates reasonable doubt despite incriminating testimonies from family.

The Appellants (A-1 and A-2) were accused of forcibly taking the 16-year-old survivor to a secluded football ground on 27.08.2017 and committing gang rape

Following an FIR by the survivor’s mother, the Special POCSO Court convicted A-1 and A-2 of various offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, sentencing both to life imprisonment for gang rape (Section 376D IPC)

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of material contradictions in the survivor's testimony, lack of medical corroboration, and misapplication of statutory presumptions

Notably, during the trial, the survivor identified A-1 but failed to identify A-2

1. Whether the survivor’s testimony was reliable enough to sustain a conviction despite minor inconsistencies and lack of conclusive medical evidence

2. Whether the conviction of A-2 could be sustained when the survivor failed to identify him during the trial

3. Whether the conviction of A-1 for repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC was legally tenable when the allegation was raised for the first time during the trial

Court applied Section 376D and 366 of the IPC regarding gang rape and kidnapping

Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act

State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny that a conviction for sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor if it inspires confidence

Joubansen Tripura v. State of Tripura regarding the prosecution's duty to prove "foundational facts" before invoking presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act

Section 36 of the POCSO Act, clarifying that while it protects child witnesses from exposure to the accused, it does not bar identification for evidentiary purposes

The Court found the survivor’s testimony regarding A-1 to be consistent and credible despite minor discrepancies, which are expected due to the lapse of time

It held that medical corroboration is not a prerequisite for conviction, especially since injuries on A-1's chest supported the survivor's version of a struggle

However, regarding A-2, the Court found the survivor's voluntary refusal to identify him in court created reasonable doubt that secondary witness testimonies (mother and brother) could not overcome

Regarding the charge of repeated rape (Section 376(2)(n) IPC), the Court ruled it violated principles of natural justice as A-1 was never charged with it during the investigation, depriving him of a fair opportunity to defend against that specific allegation

A-1's life sentence was reduced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment considering his age and first-time offender status

The Court allowed Crl.A. No. 11/2024 in full, setting aside the conviction of A-2 and ordering his immediate release due to the survivor's failure to identify him