Even in Cases of Rape, Sole Testimony Cannot Be Blindly Accepted Unless It Inspires Absolute Confidence – HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case

“Prosecutrix Must Be a Witness of Sterling Quality” - In a recent judgment High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla refused to overturn the acquittal of the accused in a rape case, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix failed to meet the judicial benchmark of “sterling quality”.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that while the law permits conviction based solely on the statement of the prosecutrix, such testimony must be of a nature that “inspires confidence, is wholly reliable, and leaves no room for doubt”. In the present case, the Court found the version of the prosecutrix riddled with inconsistencies, improbabilities, and conduct that it termed as “unnatural and unbelievable in the circumstances alleged.”

“The Double Presumption of Innocence Stands Reinforced in Case of Acquittal”

The FIR was filed by the prosecutrix on 1st September 2013, alleging that her cousin Sunil Khan had entered her home the previous day while she was alone and raped her under threat. She claimed that he tore her clothes, gagged her, and sexually assaulted her in broad daylight. However, the Sessions Court at Una acquitted the accused on 13th February 2015, observing that the evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed under Section 378 of CrPC.

Reiterating fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court observed: “In case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused—firstly, of innocence, and secondly, reinforced by the trial court’s judgment. Unless the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly perverse, interference is unwarranted.”

The Bench held that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence, and the State had failed to demonstrate any perversity in the acquittal.

“Absence of Injury, Delay in Disclosure, and Unnatural Silence Raise Serious Doubts”

The Court critically examined the version of the prosecutrix and found several aspects that contradicted common human behaviour under such trauma. The prosecutrix claimed that despite being a 40-year-old woman, she did not resist, shout, or attempt escape—even though the incident allegedly took place during the day in a populated village.

“It is highly unimaginable that a well-built lady of about 40 years of age would not show any resistance when her cousin was tearing her clothes and sexually molesting her. The absence of any resistance and absence of injuries cast serious doubts.”

The Court found no explanation for her failure to inform her sister or raise an alarm, even though neighbours lived close by. It also found contradictions between her statement to police and testimony in court regarding whether she was gagged and how the accused allegedly overpowered her.

Moreover, the medical examination did not show any signs of resistance, injury, or recent intercourse, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

“The Law Requires the Testimony to Be of Sterling Quality — This Was Not One”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated:

“A witness is of sterling quality if their statement is reliable, consistent, inspires confidence, and stands unshaken in cross-examination. It must be wholly trustworthy and free from doubt.”

The Bench held that the prosecutrix’s version failed this test and could not form the sole basis for conviction.

“We are conscious that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but it must be of such quality that no reasonable doubt remains. In this case, such confidence is lacking.”

The inconsistencies, lack of injuries, delayed FIR, and lack of natural reaction from the prosecutrix were all found to be sufficient to affirm the acquittal.

“Moral Pressure Cannot Override Legal Safeguards of Criminal Law”

While acknowledging the sensitivity of sexual offences and the importance of safeguarding survivors, the Court remained firm that criminal law demands strict proof.

“The graver the charge, the higher the standard of proof required. Moral considerations cannot substitute legal standards. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”

The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and that the acquittal was a well-reasoned decision not warranting reversal.

Appeal Dismissed, No Interference in Acquittal

The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the acquittal of Sunil Khan. However, in view of possible further proceedings, the respondent was directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to ensure availability before the Court if required.

Testimony Alone Can Convict — But Only If It Is Reliable Beyond Doubt

This judgment once again emphasizes the delicate balance courts must maintain in cases of sexual assault — neither disbelieving victims reflexively, nor convicting accused merely on suspicion or sympathy. The judgment reaffirms that liberty cannot be curtailed without irrefutable evidence, especially where the testimony is the sole basis of conviction.

In the words of the Court: “Justice must be delivered not by emotion, but by evidence.”

Date of Decision: 12 September 2025