Sole Testimony Of Prosecutrix Not Free From Doubt, Cannot Be Basis Of Conviction: Delhi High Court Acquits Five Men In Gang-Rape Case

“The Testimony Of The Prosecutrix Is Not Free From Doubt And On The Basis Of Her Sole Testimony, It Is Impossible To Arrive At A Conclusion Regarding The Guilt Of The Accused”, High Court of Delhi setting aside the convictions of five men who were sentenced for kidnapping, wrongful confinement, gang rape, and criminal intimidation. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and observed that the conviction solely based on the testimony of the prosecutrix was unsustainable in light of material inconsistencies, improbabilities, and lack of corroboration.

The judgment reaffirms the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence – particularly the presumption of innocence and the burden on the prosecution to establish guilt conclusively.

“Where Evidence Creates Suspicion But Does Not Conclusively Establish Guilt, Accused Entitled To Benefit Of Doubt”

The case originated from allegations made in December 2010, where the prosecutrix (PW3), a minor as per school records, accused five individuals – Shakeel (A1), Taseer (A2), Taufiq (A3), Rahman (A4), and Neeraj (A5) – of kidnapping her from a bus stop, confining her for two days in a residential room, and repeatedly raping her, while also threatening to kill her brother if she did not procure money and jewellery from home.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 342, 365, 376(f) and (g), and 506 IPC, sentencing them to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment each. However, on appeal, the High Court re-evaluated the entire evidentiary record and found several troubling gaps in the prosecution’s case.

Contradictory Versions, Lack Of Independent Witnesses, And Medical Silence Raised Serious Doubts

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha noted that the version given by the prosecutrix was inconsistent with those of her parents and the FIR. For instance, the FIR (Ext. PW16/A) stated that PW3 returned home on 15.12.2010 and was seen by her younger sister ‘N’ while taking a mobile phone. PW16 (father) stated she came home and took the phone. However, PW3’s deposition stated the house was locked and she had to break the lock to enter and collect the phone. The Court remarked that “the testimony of the prosecution witnesses raise several doubts in the mind of the court.”

Another critical observation related to the location of the alleged wrongful confinement. The Court noted:

“The room in which PW3 was alleged to have been confined was not an isolated room or a room situated in a desolate place. There were many persons living in the adjacent rooms. The staircase and the toilet were common. Therefore, PW3 had every opportunity to raise alarm or to escape the clutches of the alleged kidnappers. However, no such attempt is seen made.”

Justice Sudha further commented on the prosecution's failure to produce key evidence such as call detail records or independent witnesses. It was alleged that multiple people witnessed the rescue and the apprehension of the accused, and also that ransom calls were made to PW3's mobile. Yet, no call records were produced and not a single independent witness was examined. The Court drew adverse inference from such omissions, stating:

“But none of the said independent witnesses who had gathered at the said time was examined, for which no reason(s) whatsoever has been furnished by the prosecution.”

Medical Evidence Did Not Support Allegations Of Repeated Rape By Multiple Accused

The medical examination of the prosecutrix on 16.12.2010 revealed a torn hymen but showed no external or internal injuries. The Court noted the legal position that absence of injuries cannot per se negate rape, yet in the peculiar facts of this case – allegations of repeated gang rape by five men over two days – the total lack of any injury was held to weaken the prosecution’s version significantly.

“There were no injuries whatsoever on PW3 when she was examined by the doctor... There are absolutely no injuries. The hymen is reported to be torn. But PW3’s version of rape cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the materials on record.”

Questions Over Age Of Prosecutrix Add Further Uncertainty

Although the school record indicated that PW3 was born on 10.05.2000 and was thus ten years old at the time of the alleged incident, her own father and the prosecutrix admitted that a marriage alliance was being sought for her in 2010, making it implausible for her to be that young. The Court ultimately assumed her to be a minor “for argument’s sake,” but concluded that even on that premise, the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond doubt.

“The evidence regarding age is not satisfactory… It seems improbable that PW3 was only 10 years at the time of the incident.”

Trial Court Failed To Evaluate The Gaps In Prosecution’s Case, Says High Court

The judgment criticizes the trial court’s failure to appreciate the inconsistencies and absence of corroborative material. While acknowledging the trauma and complexity often faced by survivors, the Court nonetheless stressed that criminal convictions must be based on cogent, credible, and consistent evidence.

“Despite the fact that PW3 was brought back home by one of her abductors, she never raised any alarm and the reason given does not appear convincing in any manner whatsoever.”

“Her testimony does not in any way prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.”

Conviction Set Aside, Accused Acquitted Of All Charges

The High Court held that the trial court “went wrong in convicting the accused on the basis of the unsatisfactory materials on record” and allowed the appeals. The conviction and sentence passed against A1 to A5 were set aside. All five accused were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and their bail bonds were cancelled.

“In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment by which the appellants/accused (A1 to A5) have been convicted and sentenced is set aside.”

This decision is significant in reaffirming the criminal law’s unwavering requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving grave charges. The Court has reiterated that while it is vital to uphold the rights and dignity of survivors, it is equally imperative that accused persons are not convicted on conjecture or incomplete investigations.

Date of Decision: January 21, 2026