Sterling Testimony Must Inspire Confidence—Not Just Speak in Tandem: Supreme Court Acquits Two Men Convicted of Rape Citing Glaring Contradictions and Unbelievable Narrative

“The Story is Full of Holes and Raises Grave Suspicion in Our Minds Which Qualifies as Reasonable Doubt”— In a significant judgment Supreme Court of India acquitted two men previously convicted for gang rape and abduction, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix lacked the "sterling quality" required to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence. Supreme Court found the entire prosecution narrative to be riddled with contradictions, factual improbabilities, and unsupported claims.

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the Bench, observed, “Looking at the totality of the circumstances and the entire story as narrated by the victims, we find difficulty in accepting their testimony to be one having sterling quality.”

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court in 2003 for allegedly abducting and raping two women, PWs 2 and 3, who were sisters-in-law. According to the prosecution, the women left their matrimonial home following a domestic quarrel and boarded a tempo driven by the accused, who allegedly promised to drop them at Kurla. Instead, they were taken to a field and allegedly raped at knifepoint by the appellants. After the incident, they stayed in Parbhani for fifteen days and registered an FIR only upon returning to their village.

The High Court upheld the conviction in 2024, accepting the testimony of the victims as credible and corroborated. The accused, however, challenged the judgment, arguing that the narrative lacked reliability and that the evidence had substantial gaps.

The Court scrutinized the prosecution story, noting that it rested entirely on the testimony of PWs 2 and 3. While both women gave similar versions of events, the Court found their story to be inconsistent and implausible. The Bench noted that no witness from the matrimonial home of the women was examined to confirm they had left following a quarrel.

“Not only were contradictory versions given about their stay in Parbhani, nobody was examined to substantiate the stay… Even the prosecution failed to investigate where the victims stayed with the child for 15 days.”

The presence of a two-year-old boy during the alleged incident was also noted with concern. The Court found it unbelievable that the rape occurred with the child present, yet the victims gave no account of his whereabouts or reaction.
Referring to their post-incident behavior, the Court remarked,
“PW2 stated they stayed with a cousin-aunt at Parbhani, but PW3 said they stayed with an unknown woman… Such contradictions cast serious doubts on the authenticity of their version.”

PW4, a critical witness, admitted seeing the women in the tempo but failed to identify either of the accused, neither in court nor in any earlier test identification. The Court remarked on this lapse: “PW4 does not speak of the accused travelling with the victims… no attempt was made to identify them during trial.”
The Court also highlighted the medical evidence of PW9, the doctor who examined the victims. He found no signs of forced sexual intercourse despite claims of violent and repeated assault.
“Even accounting for the 15-day delay, the doctor opined that repeated forceful intercourse should have left detectable injuries… none were found.”

The Court referenced its earlier jurisprudence in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, reiterating that a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. But in this case, the Court stated, “The story as narrated does not inspire confidence… it is full of holes and raises a grave suspicion which qualifies as reasonable doubt.”

Setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, the Supreme Court acquitted both accused and directed their release, observing:
“We are unable to place any reliance on the oral testimony of PWs 2 and 3… the prosecution’s case is neither credible nor corroborated by any independent or medical evidence.”

The Court concluded with a strong caution that while courts must be sensitive to the trauma of sexual violence, they must also remain vigilant against wrongful convictions based on unreliable evidence.
“There is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishments.”

Date of Decision: April 30, 2025