### Uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix with unexplained delay and material contradictions cannot sustain a conviction for rape.

The appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecutrix alleged that on April 7, 1998, four men abducted her, blindfolded her, and gang-raped her in a nearby plot/room.

The FIR was lodged on July 31, 1998, approximately three months and 24 days after the alleged incident.

The appellants contended that the delay was unexplained, the testimony was inconsistent regarding the location (plot vs. room), and there was prior enmity over a water dispute.

The Trial Court and the High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the convictions.

Appellants 3 and 4 died during the pendency of the appeal.

1. Whether the uncorroborated, delayed, and inconsistent testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape.

2. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the non-examination of material witnesses and material contradictions in the evidence.

The Court applied Section 376(2)(g) (punishment for gang rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

It reiterated the principle that while a conviction can rest on the solitary version of a prosecutrix, it must "inspire confidence" of the Court.

The Court relied on the precedent of *Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2008) 14 SCC 763*, which established that in cases of significant delay in filing an FIR for rape without supporting medical or physical evidence, it is "hazardous" and "unsafe" to convict based solely on oral testimony.

The Court found the prosecutrix's conduct "against natural conduct," noting she failed to disclose the incident to her husband or family for months, only allegedly telling a stranger, Rahees Fatima, whose statement was never recorded in court.

The Court observed material inconsistencies between the FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements concerning the site of the incident (open plot vs. room) and the distance from her house.

Furthermore, critical witnesses mentioned by the Investigating Officer (Rahees Fatima, Mohd. Salim, and Smt. Chandra Sharma) were never produced.

The Court concluded that the lower courts erred by giving undue weight to the prosecutrix's "emotional outbursts" while ignoring the defense of prior enmity and the total lack of medical corroboration or physical evidence.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt because the prosecutrix’s testimony failed to inspire confidence and was marred by unexplained delay and contradictions.

The appellants were ordered to be released immediately.