Testimony Lack Sterling Quality and Consistency Regarding Consent Entitles Accused to Acquittal in Rape Case

On 14.12.2004 at about 10:00 AM, the prosecutrix left her house in Molarband Extension, PS Badarpur, New Delhi, to fetch cloth pieces for embroidery work. The Appellant, a neighbour known to her, allegedly offered her 'Prasad', upon consuming which she allegedly lost consciousness, regaining it in the NTPC Jungle near Kachi Sarak, where she found herself naked and was allegedly raped, threatened with death, gagged, and strangulated; her 'shameez' was torn.

She reported the incident to her mother, who informed the police, leading to registration of FIR No. 813/2004 under Sections 328/506/376 IPC.

After investigation, including medical examination of both parties, site plan preparation, and the Appellant's arrest, a charge-sheet was filed.

The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 328/506/376(1) IPC; the Appellant pleaded not guilty. On the basis of 13 prosecution witnesses, he was convicted under Sections 376/506 IPC and acquitted under Section 328 IPC.

He was sentenced to RI for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default, SI for 3 months) under Section 376 IPC, and RI for one year under Section 506 IPC.

The Appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 07.05.2008 and Order on Sentence dated 12.05.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 08/2005.

The defence case was that the parties were neighbours in an inter-faith relationship desiring marriage, which was strongly opposed by the prosecutrix's family.

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was of "sterling quality" — impeccable, consistent and reliable — so as to sustain the conviction under Sections 376/506 IPC without corroboration.

2. Whether, in the absence of documentary proof of age, the Ossification Test (Ex. PW-12/A), read with the accepted margin of error, established that the prosecutrix was a major competent to consent.

3. Whether the sexual intercourse was consensual or forcible, having regard to the contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the defence witnesses, and the medical/forensic evidence.

4. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Sections 376 and 506 IPC (substantive offences) and Section 374 Cr.P.C. (appellate jurisdiction).

On age determination, the Court applied the hierarchy crystallised in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: matriculation certificate, then record of the school first attended, then municipal/panchayat birth certificate, and only as a last resort, an Ossification Test.

Relying on Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681, the Court held that a margin of error of two years on either side must be recognised in ossification results.

On the standard for convicting on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court applied State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, which permits conviction on the prosecutrix's testimony provided it is of "sterling quality".

On the evaluation of defence evidence, the Court relied on Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 351, as reiterated in Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 7 SCC 716, and Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 166, holding that defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect, treatment, and credibility assessment as prosecution witnesses.

The Court invoked the foundational principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Applying the Juvenile Justice framework, the Court noted the absence of any matriculation certificate, school record, or birth certificate, and therefore relied on the Ossification Test (Ex. PW-12/A), which placed the prosecutrix's age between 16 and 19 years. Granting the Appellant the benefit of the two-year margin of error per Ram Suresh Singh, her age worked out to 21 years, rendering her competent to consent.

The Court held that age becomes relevant only if consent is established, and thus examined the prosecutrix's credibility. Although she consistently blamed the Appellant in her FIR statement (Ex. PW-2/A), her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex. PW-9/2), and her deposition as PW-2, the Court found her testimony fell short of the Gurmit Singh "sterling quality" standard due to pervasive improbabilities.

The Court identified improbabilities: she claimed unconsciousness from the 'Prasad' yet deposed to seeing the Appellant arrange a vehicle; the 'Prasad' was offered in a narrow, thickly populated gali making it nearly impossible for an unconscious woman to be transported unnoticed; the IO deposed that NTPC officials had spotted the couple roaming hand-in-hand without any trace of force; and in the MLC (Ex. PW-1/A) she gave a history of assault by an "unknown man", despite admittedly knowing the Appellant.

Giving equal weightage to the defence witnesses per Munshi Prasad and Adambhai, whose testimony withstood cross-examination and found support in prosecution evidence itself, the Court accepted the narrative of a consensual inter-faith relationship thwarted by familial opposition.

The medical evidence (hymen ruptured but an old rupture, no blood) and the forensic reports (Ex. PW-13/G & H — semen detected but serological grouping inconclusive against the Appellant's 'A' blood group) confirmed sexual relations but were equivocal on force, leaving the prosecution's case short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the impugned Judgment dated 07.05.2008 was set aside, and the Appellant stood acquitted of the offences under Sections 376/506 IPC; his bail bonds were discharged and pending applications disposed of.