Scientific and Medical Evidence Must Corroborate Prosecutrix’s Testimony in Rape Cases: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Citing Reasonable Doubt

"Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Take the Place of Proof" — Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur set aside a 30-year-old conviction for rape and criminal trespass under Sections 376 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court observed that the absence of forensic and medical corroboration, coupled with contradictions in the prosecution’s version, rendered the conviction legally unsustainable. The judgment underscores the principle that "judicial prudence demands evidence of unimpeachable character, particularly in serious offences like rape."

The appellant, Khema, was convicted by the District & Sessions Judge, Banswara, on 14 February 1995, for allegedly raping a woman and trespassing on her property. The case originated from an FIR lodged three days after the alleged incident, where the prosecutrix accused Khema of entering her field and committing rape.

During the trial, Khema pleaded false implication, stating that he was assaulted by the prosecutrix and her husband due to personal animosity. The fields of both parties were adjacent, and the accused claimed that the prosecutrix’s husband, Hardariya, held a long-standing grudge against him.

The primary legal question was whether the conviction for rape could be sustained in the absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence, and whether the inconsistencies and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR diluted the prosecution’s credibility.

The High Court noted:

“Scientific and medical evidence should have corroborated the prosecutrix’s testimony; their absence raises a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of her version.”

The Court further emphasized:

“While a man may lie, circumstances do not.”

In this case, it found that the medical evidence completely failed to support the allegation of sexual assault, as no seminal fluid or blood stains were found on the prosecutrix’s clothes and no FSL report was produced.

The Court quoted the principle from Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007 4 Cr.L.J. 4704):

“The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies… unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary.”

However, the Court concluded that the discrepancies and lack of independent corroboration went beyond ‘minor’ and struck at the heart of credibility.

The Court found that PW-2 Ramesh, an eyewitness, corroborated that a quarrel took place and that the appellant had sustained a bleeding injury, inflicted by the prosecutrix’s husband using an axe. The appellant’s medical report corroborated this version.

“The consistency between his testimony and medical evidence significantly diminishes the strength of the prosecution’s case, which is primarily based on the prosecutrix’s accusations.”

Further, the prosecution failed to examine one key eyewitness (Raman) and did not explain this lapse. The Court noted that

“The FIR was lodged with a delay of three days without any satisfactory explanation, which is often indicative of a fabricated or exaggerated story.”

Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yogesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (AIR 2021 SC 1904), the High Court reiterated the caution:

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

On the charge of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC, the Court ruled:

“No case has been established to warrant a conviction... the circumstances do not demonstrate an intention to commit any offence or to cause unlawful dispossession.”

The High Court held that the prosecution’s story was riddled with inconsistencies, lacked forensic and medical corroboration, and appeared to be motivated by personal enmity. It thus extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of all charges.

“In the absence of concrete and convincing evidence, the presumption of innocence must prevail.”

Resultantly, the conviction recorded on 14 February 1995 was quashed, and the accused was acquitted under Sections 376 and 447 IPC. The Court ordered the appellant’s bail bonds to be discharged.

Date of Decision: 12 May 2025