Drastic Variations And Material Improvements Render Testimony Unsafe Without Corroboration: Delhi High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case

“Testimony Must Be Of Sterling Quality”, In a significant criminal appellate judgment Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of two accused for gang rape, wrongful confinement and allied offences, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix suffered from “material contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies going to the root of the prosecution case.”

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha ruled that while conviction in a rape case can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must be of “sterling quality” as laid down in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi). In the present case, the Court found that the standard was not met and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants.

Allegation Of One-Year Confinement And Repeated Gang Rape

The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix (PW3) was wrongfully confined for nearly one year in a house at Govind Puri, New Delhi, and was repeatedly raped by multiple persons including A1 (Manoj) and A3 (Mukesh). It was further alleged that injections were administered to her and several unknown men were brought to sexually assault her. She was allegedly rescued on 12.06.2012 after throwing a toothbrush from a bathroom window to attract attention.

The trial court convicted A1 under Sections 342, 323, 376 and 376(2)(g) IPC and A3 under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment of up to eleven and ten years respectively. A4 was acquitted. A2 was declared a proclaimed offender.

Aggrieved, A1 and A3 preferred appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

“Conviction Can Rest On Sole Testimony — If Of Sterling Quality”

The High Court reiterated the settled principle that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can sustain a conviction if it is of unimpeachable character. Quoting Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court observed:

“It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness… Under no circumstances should there be room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it.”

The Court emphasized that consistency “right from the starting point till the end” is the touchstone for testing credibility.

“Seven Days” In FIR, “One Year” In Court — A Drastic Variation

A crucial factor that weighed with the Court was the stark inconsistency between the First Information Statement (Ext. PW3/A) and the deposition before the trial court.

In the FIR, the prosecutrix alleged that she had been sexually assaulted about seven days prior to her rescue. However, before the trial court she deposed that she had been confined and repeatedly raped for nearly one year by A1, A3, Angesh and several other unidentified men.

The High Court held that such a “drastic variation cannot be treated as a minor discrepancy.”

Further, while in the FIR A3 was merely alleged to have been present when A1 raped her, during trial she alleged that A3 administered injections, arranged 10–20 men to rape her, and himself repeatedly committed rape. These allegations surfaced for the first time in Court.

The Court termed these as “material improvements” which rendered the testimony unsafe without corroboration.

MLC Silence On A3 — Not Fatal, But Significant In Context

The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) recorded that the prosecutrix had left her home about one year earlier and had been taken to a house by one Najib. The name of A3 did not find mention in the medical history.

The Court acknowledged the principle laid down in Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of A.P. that omission of an accused’s name in the MLC is not by itself fatal, since a doctor’s duty is treatment and not investigation.

However, the Court clarified that “in the case on hand, the entries made in the MLC also assume importance in the light of the inconsistent testimony of PW3,” thereby adding to the cumulative doubt.

Rescue Established, But Not Continuous Confinement

Independent witnesses PW12 and PW14 deposed that the prosecutrix threw a toothbrush from a bathroom window and sought help, leading to police intervention.

The High Court found no reason to disbelieve them and accepted that she was rescued from the premises. However, their testimony did not corroborate allegations of prolonged confinement or repeated gang rape.

“Their evidence does not corroborate the allegations of confinement, repeated sexual assault, etc. as spoken to by PW3,” the Court observed.

Conduct During Alleged Confinement Created Serious Doubt

The Court found the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged one-year confinement difficult to reconcile with the prosecution story.

She admitted in cross-examination that she was taken outside the house on multiple occasions, including to a doctor, and that neighbouring houses were in close proximity. She also admitted giving birth to a child during the alleged period of confinement, though the details of delivery were unclear.

The Court observed that the materials on record showed that she had “several opportunities to go out as well as raise alarm.”

It found it “difficult to believe that in none of the instances including the time of her delivery, she was unable to bring the abuse to the notice of any person.”

Shifting Versions And Role Of Co-Accused

The High Court also noted inconsistencies regarding Angesh and A4. In the FIR, Angesh was said to have abandoned her in Saharanpur and no allegation of rape was made against him. However, during trial she alleged that Angesh had also raped her repeatedly.

A4, initially implicated, was later given a “clean chit” during deposition and eventually acquitted by the trial court.

Such shifting stands, the Court held, undermined the credibility of the prosecution case.

Benefit Of Doubt Extended

On cumulative assessment, the High Court held:

“In the aforesaid circumstances, it can only be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and so they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of A1 and A3 were set aside. They were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and directed to be set at liberty. Bail bonds were cancelled.

The judgment is a reminder that while courts are sensitive to the nature of sexual offences and the evidentiary challenges involved, the foundational requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains inviolable. The High Court’s decision underscores that inconsistencies which strike at the core of the prosecution narrative cannot be brushed aside as minor discrepancies, particularly where the conviction rests substantially on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

Date of Decision: 25.02.2026