Victim’s Evidence Must Withstand Scrutiny—Uncorroborated Testimony, Riddled with Contradictions, Cannot Sustain Conviction: Delhi High Court Acquits Four Accused in Sexual Assault Case

“The testimony of the prosecutrix does not meet the standard of a ‘sterling witness’ as defined in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)... it is full of improvements, inconsistencies and contradictions” – In a critical ruling Delhi High Court, through Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, delivered a strong reaffirmation of the legal standard required for conviction in cases involving sexual offences. While allowing four connected criminal appeals filed by Tukun Das, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Pawan Kumar Tanwari, and Dev Kant Giri, the Court observed that the prosecutrix’s testimony lacked the degree of credibility required to sustain conviction, particularly in the absence of corroborative medical, forensic, or independent eyewitness support.

The judgment categorically held that the prosecution failed to produce consistent and trustworthy evidence, and the Court was “not persuaded to sustain conviction based on a testimony which failed the touchstone of reliability, coherence and corroboration.”

The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Fast Track Court, Saket, in 2016, under Sections 452, 354, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt, having been subjected to a flawed criminal process marred by contradictions and material omissions.

The FIR was registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar in the early hours of 15 September 2014, following a complaint by the prosecutrix, a woman residing in a colony in Delhi, alleging that four men—her neighbours—had unlawfully entered her house, hurled abuses, assaulted her, and attempted to outrage her modesty.

Subsequent to the FIR, further statements under Section 164 CrPC and supplementary statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded, which included allegations that one of the accused, Tukun Das, had inserted his finger into her private parts. Based on these later statements, charges under Section 376(D) IPC (gang rape) were also framed.

The Trial Court, however, had acquitted all four men of gang rape, noting that the allegation surfaced only after a considerable delay and bore signs of being a material improvement. Nonetheless, it convicted the appellants under Sections 452, 354, and 323 IPC, relying primarily on the prosecutrix’s oral testimony.

It is this conviction that came to be challenged before the High Court.

What Constitutes a 'Sterling Witness' in Cases of Sexual Offence?

The crux of the legal issue before the High Court was whether the testimony of the prosecutrix, standing unsupported by medical, forensic or consistent eyewitness evidence, could be relied upon to sustain conviction.

The Court began by recognising that in cases of sexual assault, the testimony of the victim alone can be sufficient, but only if it inspires confidence, is consistent, and passes the test of truthfulness. This principle has long been established in Indian jurisprudence.

Justice Ohri extensively referred to the Supreme Court’s formulation of the term “sterling witness” in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2012) 8 SCC 21], observing:

“The ‘sterling witness’ should be of very high quality and calibre... such a witness should be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it at face value without any hesitation.”

In the present case, the Court was unequivocal in its finding:

“I am afraid it is not so in the present case. Her testimony is full of material improvements at all stages and also carries contradictions when contrasted with the testimony of police witnesses and the alleged tenant.”

The Court further remarked that once the prosecutrix’s version failed the test of being a sterling witness, the entire testimony had to be discarded and could not be selectively relied upon.

Contradictions, Delayed Allegations and Implausible Witnesses

The Court analysed the prosecution’s case in detail and noted several glaring contradictions:

The first report (DD No. 4A) to the police only mentioned a “quarrel” and the victim being unwell—no allegations of molestation or sexual assault were made at that stage. The FIR, registered at 10:40 AM on 15 September 2014, named the appellants but still made no mention of sexual assault or finger insertion.

The first reference to sexual assault appeared only on 19 September 2014, four days later, during the statement under Section 164 CrPC. The same version was then repeated in a third supplementary statement under Section 161 CrPC. The High Court found this timing to be highly questionable, particularly since the victim had earlier chances to disclose such a serious allegation.

As Justice Ohri observed: “It is only on 19.09.2014, when the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, that the said allegation surfaced for the first time… Till this date there was no allegation of insertion of finger by the appellant/Tukun Das.”

The Court found that these late insertions cast a shadow on the victim’s credibility, especially in the absence of medical corroboration or visible injuries, and with the FSL report being inconclusive.

Further, the Court observed that the tenant witness (PW-4)—who allegedly witnessed the accused fleeing—was unreliable. His presence was not mentioned in the initial statements, his testimony did not match the victim’s version about the structure of the house, and he could not produce any rent receipts or documents proving tenancy.

The Court held that the witness appeared to have been planted later to bolster the case:“The witness in the form of tenant is planted and completely untrustworthy.”

Even a neighbour (PW13) cited as an eyewitness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

Conviction Unsustainable, Acquittal Ordered

Having examined the evidence threadbare, the High Court concluded that the victim’s version failed the legal test of credibility and was replete with contradictions and afterthoughts.

“Once this court reaches a conclusion that the testimony of victim is neither credible nor reliable, the same is to be wholly discarded… it is not severable.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the conviction was unsustainable in law, and the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt.

The appeals were allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges. The Court directed that:

“The bail bonds filed by them are cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Trial Court as well as the concerned Jail Superintendent.”

Fundamental Criminal Law Principle

This decision is a significant reiteration of the principle that criminal convictions cannot rest on uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony, even in offences relating to sexual violence. While Indian courts are conscious of the trauma victims face and often proceed with sensitivity, this case illustrates the judiciary’s duty to ensure that no person is convicted unless the evidence withstands strict judicial scrutiny.

The Court reaffirms that a fair trial is a right not only of the victim but also of the accused, and that reliance on unreliable testimony amounts to miscarriage of justice.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2025