Uncorroborated and contradictory victim testimony cannot sustain conviction under Section 354 of the IPC.

The appellant was accused of entering the victim's house on October 16, 2013, under the pretext of her husband being on a phone call, and subsequently attempting to commit rape

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on October 19, 2013, after a three-day delay, following the return of the victim's husband

Although the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC (attempted rape), the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC (outraging modesty), sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of unexplained delay in the FIR, material contradictions in the victim's testimony regarding the place of occurrence, and an ongoing land dispute between the parties

1. Whether the three-day delay in lodging the FIR without rational explanation, coupled with material improvements in the victim's testimony, renders the prosecution’s case unreliable

2. Whether the evidence on record, specifically the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of the victim, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 354 of the IPC

Section 354 of the IPC regarding the outraging of a woman's modesty and Sections 376/511 regarding attempted rape

The court applied the settled legal principle that while the sole testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction, such testimony must be inherently reliable and consistent

The court looked at the evidentiary value of corroborative physical evidence, such as torn clothing, in cases of sexual assault

The Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant infirmities. First, the three-day delay in lodging the FIR lacked a rational explanation, especially since the victim had informed a neighbor (P.W.-1) immediately after the incident

Second, the Court noted material contradictions in the victim's (P.W.-3) testimony: in the FIR, she stated the incident occurred inside her house, but in her deposition, she claimed it happened outside near a hand-pump

She also introduced new facts during trial, such as using a basala (wood-cutting tool) to deter the accused, which were absent from the original FIR

Third, despite the victim's claim that her clothing (nighty) was torn during the assault, the garment was never shown to the police or produced in court, leading to a lack of corroborative physical evidence

Finally, the Court observed that an admitted land dispute between the parties increased the likelihood of false implication

The Court found insufficient material to justify the conviction even under Section 354 of the IPC

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 26, 2022, were quashed and set aside, and the appellant was discharged from his bail bonds