Section 376 IPC | Absence Of Injuries On Prosecutrix And Material Inconsistencies In Testimony Vitiate Conviction: Allahabad High Court

"The court shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen." Allahabad High Court, in a judgment delivered on September 16, 2026, set aside the conviction of two appellants under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

A bench presided over by Justice Harvir Singh observed that where the prosecutrix’s testimony is unsupported by medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances render the prosecution story highly improbable, the court cannot act upon such evidence.

The appellants, Ramesh and Kalu, were convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in 1988 for the alleged rape of a woman in a maize field on August 2, 1985. The prosecution alleged that while one accused committed the act, the other restrained the victim. The defense contended that the case was a fabrication born out of village rivalry, specifically disputes surrounding the illicit liquor trade, and that the accused had been falsely implicated after being assaulted by a group of villagers.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution had proven the commission of rape beyond reasonable doubt, specifically in light of the absence of physical injuries on the prosecutrix and material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The court also examined whether the version of the "eye witnesses" was consistent with the physical realities of the scene and the medical evidence presented.

Medical Evidence and Absence of Struggle

The court noted a critical lack of medical corroboration. Although the prosecution claimed the victim was dragged and forcibly restrained by two men, the medical examination of the prosecutrix by P.W. 8 Dr. Aruna Prasad revealed zero external or internal injuries. The court held that while a victim of rape may not always suffer injuries, the total absence of any signs of a struggle in a case involving an alleged brutal pinning down in a field undermined the prosecution’s narrative.

Absence of Injuries on Prosecutrix "In the instant case, Dr. Aruna Prasad (PW-8) found zero injuries (external or internal) on the prosecutrix, even though two men allegedly overpowered, dragged, and pinned her down in a rough agricultural field."

Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony

The court highlighted significant discrepancies in the sequence of events. The prosecutrix’s testimony shifted regarding which accused committed the act first and who held her hands. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution failed to produce Tej Singh, a purported witness who allegedly assisted in apprehending one of the accused. The court remarked that if a genuine struggle had occurred, the witnesses involved would likely have sustained injuries, yet none were reported.

Unreliability of Witness Accounts "The story appears to be concocted, as there is no consistency of the witnesses, as to where both have seen the commission of offence together, or separately, and have merely stated that the witnesses have seen the commission of offence."

Application of "Sterling Witness" Doctrine

The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Santosh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar, emphasizing that a "sterling witness" must be of high caliber and their version unassailable. The court found that the witnesses in the present case failed to withstand the test of consistency, with their narratives fluctuating between trial stages. The court concluded that the injuries found on the appellant Ramesh were more consistent with an assault by a group of villagers rather than a struggle during the commission of rape.

Evaluation of the Prosecution Narrative

The court observed that the FIR’s credibility was severely dented by the contradictory versions regarding when the police arrived and when the victim was taken to the station. The bench held that when the entire surrounding circumstances are highly improbable, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be the basis for conviction, especially when it is not backed by reliable corroborative evidence.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, noting that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational facts of the alleged crime. As the appeal against the first appellant, Ramesh, had already abated due to his death, the court ordered the immediate release of the second appellant, Kalu, and the cancellation of his bail bonds.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026