Testimony of a child victim and corroborative medical evidence establish attempt to rape despite hostile witnesses.

On August 30, 2010, a seven-year-old girl was sexually assaulted on a terrace near HUDCO Place, New Delhi

The victim’s mother encountered the child after she failed to return from playing, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 376/511 of the IPC

During the trial, the victim’s mother (PW-2) and maternal grandmother (PW-5) turned hostile, disowning parts of their initial statements

The MLC (Ex. PW-8/A) revealed witness-observed white stains on the victim's clothes and white discharge in the labial folds

The trial court convicted the Appellant for attempt to commit rape, sentencing him to two years of Rigorous Imprisonment

The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the testimony of hostile witnesses and contradictions in the victim's statement rendered the case unreliable

Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the attempt to commit rape

The evidentiary principle that the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not apply in India; thus, the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution and is corroborated by other evidence, as established in K.P. Tamilmaran v. State (2025) and Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012)

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to evaluate the Appellant's admissions during his statement

The Court reasoned that while PW-2 and PW-5 were "won over" due to their social and economic vulnerability, their testimonies regarding the occurrence of the incident and the presence of the police remained credible

The Court emphasized that the victim’s (PW-4) testimony, despite attempts by her mother to tutor her into silence, revealed the truth during re-examination when she confirmed the Appellant jumped on her after removing his clothes

The Court linked this to the MLC, which recorded seminal stains on the victim's frock and labia majora, noting these findings were consistent with an attempted sexual assault

The Court rejected the Appellant's defense under Section 313 Cr.P.C.—where he claimed semen accidentally soiled the victim while he was masturbating—labeling it "counter-productive" as it failed to explain how semen reached the victim’s labia

The Court found the Appellant’s actions went beyond mere "outraging modesty" and constituted a penultimate act of rape interrupted only by external factors

It held that the testimony of the child victim was potent and corroborated by medical evidence, notwithstanding the hostility of adult relatives

The Appellant was ordered to surrender immediately to serve the remainder of his two-year sentence, with the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.