Courts Cannot Condone Contradictory Evidence For Partial Acceptance To Secure Conviction Under Section 376 IPC: Supreme Court

"There cannot be part acceptance and part rejection of the statement of the prosecutrix for the purpose of Section 366 IPC and partial acceptance of the very same statement for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 376 IPC." Supreme Court, in a latest  judgment dated September 25, 2026, held that once a court has disbelieved a prosecutrix’s testimony regarding the charge of kidnapping or abduction, the same testimony cannot be selectively relied upon to secure a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that if a prosecutrix’s evidence is to be accepted as credible, it must be unimpeachable in its entirety, as the law does not permit a pick-and-choose approach to a single witness's statement to maintain consistency in criminal charges.

Conviction Must Rest On Hard Evidence

The case arose from an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had affirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 376 of the IPC. The trial court had initially acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 366 of the IPC, finding no evidence of kidnapping or abduction, yet paradoxically convicted him for rape based on the same witness testimony that it had deemed unreliable for the abduction charge. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, contending that the conviction was based on conjecture and that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

The primary question before the court was whether a trial court could legally convict an accused under Section 376 IPC while simultaneously rejecting the prosecution's case regarding the same complainant's abduction. The court also examined whether the evidence of the prosecutrix, when found to be contradictory and riddled with inconsistencies, could inspire enough confidence to sustain a conviction for a grave offence like rape.

Analysis Of Contradictory Testimonies

The court meticulously analysed the evidence of the prosecutrix and found her version of events to be a bundle of contradictions. The prosecution alleged that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken to various locations, yet the court noted that she travelled through busy bazaars and brightly lit intersections on a scooter and in a car without ever raising a hue and cry or attempting to escape. The bench observed that such conduct is inconsistent with a victim being held against her will.

Doctrine Of Evidence Consistency

The court highlighted the fallacy in the trial court's logic, which attempted to justify the conviction by speculating that a woman might accompany a man to a far-off place and spend a night with him, yet not consent to sexual intercourse. The bench termed this reasoning as "convoluted logic" and warned against basing criminal convictions on the subjective value judgments of a presiding judge.

"Immorality of an act sans credible evidence cannot justify a conviction."

The Necessity Of Unimpeachable Evidence

The bench reiterated that while a conviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, that testimony must be of such an unblemished character that it inspires the total confidence of the court. When the court has already disbelieved the witness regarding the sequence of events leading up to the alleged crime, it cannot adopt a bifurcated approach to the evidence. The court noted that the presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab, while a medical fact, cannot independently prove the offence of rape when the surrounding circumstances point toward a lack of credibility in the prosecution's entire narrative.

Rejection Of Convoluted Judicial Logic

The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the lower courts' reliance on Section 114A of the Evidence Act, 1872, noting that the presumption of non-consent cannot be used to bridge the gaps in an inherently unreliable testimony. The court emphasized that the conduct of the appellant, even if considered immoral or unethical, does not equate to the commission of a crime under the IPC unless it is supported by clinching evidence. The bench concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, and subsequently affirmed by the High Court, were legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Court, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 IPC. The ruling reinforces the high evidentiary standard required in sexual assault cases and mandates that trial courts must ensure that the testimony of a victim is consistent and reliable before pinning a criminal conviction upon it.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2026