-
by sayum
07 April 2026 10:06 AM
In a landmark judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that mere emotional distress or weeping during testimony cannot substitute for credible, substantive evidence in a rape trial. Allowing the criminal appeal in part, Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao set aside the conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC, while upholding the conviction for abduction under Section 366 IPC.
“The victim’s emotional breakdown in the witness box cannot be presumed to be proof of the rape allegation. Courts must seek cogent testimony, not infer guilt from demeanour alone,” the Court observed, reversing the Sessions Court’s finding of guilt for rape despite the prosecutrix having turned hostile.
The High Court found no direct evidence, no corroborative testimony from the prosecutrix (PW-1), no injuries, and no medical linkage of the act to the accused, thereby holding that rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“Hostile Prosecutrix, Contradictory Statements, No Injuries: Rape Conviction Unsustainable in Law”
The prosecution alleged that on January 19, 2009, the accused, Vemula Veera Swamy, a known offender in Machilipatnam, abducted a 17-year-old B.Sc. Computer Science student from near Sai Baba Temple while she was conversing with her friend (PW-3). The accused allegedly slapped PW-3, threatened PW-1, and took her on his motorcycle to a dilapidated house, where he allegedly raped her. He later dropped her near the temple and threatened her not to speak of the incident.
However, during the trial, the prosecutrix categorically denied the occurrence of rape. She admitted that the FIR (Ex.P1) was written at the dictation of the police, and explicitly denied having given her 161 CrPC statement. Although she became visibly emotional and wept when questioned about the room incident, she refused to depose about what happened inside. The High Court held:
“Reliance on emotional display as a proxy for corroboration of rape is legally unsound and procedurally inappropriate... PW-1 was an educated young adult, and her detailed responses to cross-examination clearly establish her ability to testify, had she chosen to.”
“Semen Presence Is Not Enough—No Link Between Accused and Alleged Act of Rape”: Medical Evidence Fails to Support Prosecution
The medical report (Ex.P9) from PW-9, the examining doctor, confirmed the presence of human spermatozoa, but found no injuries, rupture, or evidence of force. The Court concluded that:
“Medical evidence alone, without any direct or circumstantial link to the accused, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC.”
The Court criticised the Sessions Judge for placing reliance on emotional reaction and medical possibility without connecting it to the identity of the offender, which is a critical legal threshold in rape trials.
“Prosecution Case Lacks Credibility—Victim and Father’s Versions Contradict, FIR Timing in Doubt”
A major dent in the prosecution’s case was the inconsistency in the testimonies of PW-1 and her father (PW-2) regarding when the FIR was lodged and how the incident was reported. The victim claimed she went home after the incident, had lunch, and later went for tuition without telling anyone. Her father claimed she called him and lodged the FIR immediately.
The Court observed:
“These inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution story. They are not minor contradictions, but shake the very credibility of the complaint itself.”
Furthermore, PW-1 deposed that she never told anyone she was raped, and her father admitted that he never read the FIR or discussed its contents with his daughter.
“Abduction Proven by Eyewitnesses and Victim’s Admission—Section 366 IPC Conviction Stands”
While setting aside the rape charge, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 366 IPC for abduction. The testimony of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 consistently established that the accused forcibly took PW-1 on his motorcycle from a public place. PW-1, in her second deposition, identified the accused in court and admitted that he had taken her against her will.
“There is no hesitation in concluding that the accused forcibly took the victim from the Sai Baba temple to a remote location. This constitutes abduction under Section 366 IPC.”
“Court Cannot Assume What the Victim Did Not Say”: Silence Is Not Substantive Evidence
The Court distinguished its approach from State of Rajasthan v. Chatra (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 323), where a child witness remained silent but wept in court. The High Court clarified:
“Unlike a child witness, PW-1 was a college-going young adult who had full capacity to narrate the events. Her refusal to describe the alleged rape cannot be construed as implied affirmation of the FIR allegations.”
The Court sharply criticised the Sessions Court's presumption that emotional tears equate to testimonial truth, holding that criminal conviction cannot rest on inference or presumption when the accused’s liberty is at stake.
“Accused’s Criminal Background Not Relevant to Prove Present Charge Without Evidence”: High Court Disapproves Trial Court’s Reliance on Character
The Sessions Court had relied on the accused’s history, including his prior involvement in a murder case and the existence of a rowdy sheet, to support the rape conviction. Justice Rao expressly rejected this approach:
“Past conduct or criminal history, however notorious, is not proof of guilt in the present case unless linked through evidence. Conviction cannot rest on prejudice.”
Acquittal on Rape Charge, Conviction for Abduction Maintained
Having found the rape charge legally unsustainable, the Andhra Pradesh High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal:
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam for compliance.
“Courts must ensure that charges of such serious nature are adjudicated based on credible evidence—not conjecture, emotion, or institutional bias. Justice demands no less.”
Date of Decision: 05 November 2025
