Uncorroborated Testimony Of Prosecutrix Suffering From Material Contradictions Cannot Sustain Conviction: Delhi High Court

"Where such testimony suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements, the Court is duty bound to seek corroboration before sustaining a conviction." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 20, 2026, held that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a sexual assault survivor if her statements are riddled with material improvements and inconsistencies.

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be of "sterling quality" and inspire absolute confidence in the mind of the court.

The State had filed an appeal challenging a 2014 trial court judgment that acquitted a coaching centre tutor of offences punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused had sexually harassed and assaulted his 11-year-old student at the coaching centre in August 2013. The trial court had acquitted the accused after finding reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative.

The primary question before the court was whether the material improvements in the minor victim's testimony warranted corroborative evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court was also called upon to determine whether the appellate court should interfere with a trial court's order of acquittal when the defence had successfully raised a reasonable doubt regarding the presence of the accused.

Sole Testimony Must Be Of Sterling Quality

The High Court emphasized that it is a settled position of criminal law that an accused can be convicted based exclusively on the testimony of the prosecutrix. However, the court added a crucial caveat, noting that such unilateral reliance is permissible only when the witness is wholly reliable. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ganesan v. State (2020), the bench clarified the strict boundaries of this legal principle.

"It is a settled position of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be of sterling quality and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court."

Corroboration Mandatory For Inconsistent Statements

Analyzing the evidence on record, the court observed that the victim in the present case did not possess a consistent narrative of the alleged incident. The bench noted severe discrepancies between the initial FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and her final deposition before the trial court. Consequently, the court ruled that in the absence of independent corroboration, such shifting narratives render the prosecution's case fundamentally weak and incapable of sustaining a guilty verdict.

Glaring Contradictions In Victim's Narrative

The court meticulously documented the improvements made by the minor victim during the trial proceedings. In her initial complaint and magisterial statement, she alleged that the accused grabbed her hand while she was leaving and directly asked to kiss her. However, during her court examination, she introduced an entirely new narrative, claiming the accused called her to a private cabin, asked if his approach was offensive, and sought formal permission before making any advances.

Motive For False Implication Revealed

The High Court also gave significant weight to the admissions made by the victim and her father during their cross-examination. It was admitted that the accused tutor frequently scolded the girl for her poor academic performance and her failure to complete homework. The bench observed that the accused had complained to her parents about her studies, which admittedly made the minor girl very angry with him, thereby establishing a potential motive for false implication.

Defence Successfully Established Alibi

Furthermore, the bench noted that the defence witnesses successfully corroborated the tutor's alibi that he was giving home tuitions at a different location in Mangol Puri on the days in question. The testimony of another student revealed that the victim had engaged in a heated argument with the accused just days before the FIR, explicitly refusing to take a mandatory test because she had discontinued coaching for those specific subjects.

Double Presumption Of Innocence In Acquittal Appeals

Addressing the scope of appellate interference under Section 386(1) CrPC, the High Court reiterated that an order of acquittal reinforces the fundamental presumption of innocence. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents including Babu Sahebogouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), and Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007), the bench stressed that appellate courts should be extremely slow in reversing an acquittal if the trial court's view is reasonable and plausible.

"An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in the case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused... if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal."

Finding no perversity, non-appreciation of evidence, or failure to appreciate materials on record in the trial court's judgment, the High Court declined to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal preferred by the State was accordingly dismissed as being entirely sans merit.

Date of Decision: 20 July 2026