Full Judgment
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 01st, April, 2026 Pronounced on: 20th May, 2026 Uploaded on: 22nd May, 2026 + CRL.A. 126/2015 STATE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv. SI. Sudhanshu Singh, P.S. Seelampur.
versus
MOHD. ARIF .....Respondent Through: Dr. Teeka Ram Naval, DHCLSC with Mr. Akash Mahi, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ‘Cr PC’) has been preferred by the State assailing the Impugned Judgment of Acquittal dated 10th May, 2013, passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-01 (North East): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the Respondent/Accused has been acquitted in Sessions Case No. 37/2012, arising out of FIR No. 22/2012, registered at Police Station Seelampur, under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’).
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 1 of 37 FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The factual genesis of the present case is as follows. On the
intervening night of 21st and 22nd January, 2012, DD No. 36-A was recorded at Police Station Seelampur in connection with an alleged attempt of rape upon a minor girl aged approximately 6 years, at House No. E-1/56, Near Kabari Pulia, Lakri Market, Seelampur, Delhi. The said DD was assigned to S.I. Fateh Singh (PW-9), who reached the spot accordingly.
3. Upon arrival at the spot, S.I. Fateh Singh was met by certain members
of the public who produced the Respondent/Accused- Mohd. Arif, before him. It was stated by the people present there, that the Respondent/Accused had lured the victim, aged about 6 years, from the gali and taken her to his Jhuggi bearing No. E-1/12, Seat Market, New Seelampur, Delhi, and had thereupon attempted to commit rape upon her. The Prosecutrix/Victim was also produced before S.I. Fateh Singh at the spot, along with her mother PW-4.
4. S.I. Fateh Singh thereafter called Lady Constable Sumitra (PW-5)
from the Police Station and sent the Prosecutrix/Victim along with her mother (PW- 4) to GTB Hospital for medical examination. The victim was medically examined at GTB Hospital vide MLC bearing Mark ‘X’. The Respondent/Accused was simultaneously sent in the custody of Ct. Ashok Kumar (PW-8) to GTB Hospital for his medical examination, which was conducted vide MLC Ex.PW3/A, proved by PW3 Dr. Mohd. Parvez, J.R., GTB Hospital. The relevant portions of MLCs of both the Prosecutrix/Victim and the Respondent/Accused are extracted hereinbelow:
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 2 of 37
Victim MLC: “History & Clinical Examination History: 6-year-old female, alleged history (as told by patient & her mother) of sexual assault by neighbor, Mohd. Arif, on 21/01/12 at 11:00 AM, when she was sent to buy something from a shop nearby. General Condition: Patient is conscious and oriented. Local Examination (P/A & L/E): o P/A (Per Abdomen): Soft, no organomegaly. o L/E (Local Examination): * Hymen: Intact. Local Findings: Small abrasion at posterior fourchette. Pain/Tenderness: Tenderness present, no active bleeding. Anal Opening: Intact.”
Respondent/Accused MLC: “Local Examination: Secondary sexual character beard, Moustache, Axillary hair, Pubic hair well developed. Both testes are in scrotal sac. Penis is well developed, normal and circumscribed. Opinion: There is nothing suggestive that patient is not capable of performing sexual intercourse.”
5. The relevant medical opinion regarding the Respondent/Accused and Prosecutrix/Victim MLC is reproduced hereinbelow: Witnesses Statement In Chief Statement In Cross Examination Examination PW- 13 Dr. I have worked with Dr.
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 3 of 37
Modesta Shruti B at GTB Hospital
(victim and as such I am
MLC) acquainted with herwriting and signature. She has left service from GTB Hospital and her present whereabouts are not known to me. I have seen the MLC No.G-8/12 available on judicial file which was prepared by Dr. Shruti B and I identify her signature at point A. The MLC Mark X is now Ex.PW13/A. PW- 3 Dr. On 22.01.2012, at about I had not noticed any Mohd. 02:45am, patient Mohd. external injury on the Parvez Arif (accused), S/o Mohd. penis of patient. Hanif, 26 years male, brought by Ct. Ashok Kumar was medically examined, vide MLC Ex.PW3/A which bears my signature at point A. Alleged history 'sexual assault' was recorded by me as given by brought by aforesaid constable. I recorded general condition of patient. He was conscious and oriented. At the time of medical examination, smell of alcohol was present in his breath. I also recorded secondary sexual character of the
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 4 of 37 patient at encircled portion X on MLC Ex.PW3/A. I gave impression “there is nothing to suggest that patient is not capable of performing sexual intercourse”.
6. On the basis of the statement of PW-4, mother of the victim, recorded
by S.I. Fateh Singh vide Ex.PW4/A, endorsed vide Ex.PW1/A. FIR No. Seelampur, vide Ex.PW1/B. Subsequent to registration of the FIR, investigation of the present case was handed over to W/S.I. Sarita (PW-10). Ex.PW/4/A is reproduced hereinbelow: “बयान िकया िक म पता उपरो पर मय प रवार रहती ँ और घरे लू काय करती ँ तथा मेरे पित र ा चलाते ह। मेरे दो ब े ह, िजनम छोटी लड़की रै कशा उ 6 साल की है । जो कल िदनां क 21-1-2012 को समय करीब 10-30 बजे रात को हमारे पड़ोस म रहने वाला मो० आ रफ s/o मो० हनीफ R/o झु ी E-1/12 New Seelampur, हमारे घर पर आया और मेरी लड़की रै कशा को पैसे दे कर दु कान से गुटका लाने को कहा तथा यह कहकर िक गुटका मेरी झु ी म दे आना, अपनी झु ी म चला गया और रै कशा गुटका खरीदकर आ रफ की झु ी म चली गई जब कुछ दे र तक रै कशा वापस नहीं आई तो म रै कशा को तलाश करती ई आ रफ की झु ी पर प ं ची जो आ रफ की झु ी का दरवाजा ब था मेरी धमक दे खकर आ रफ की झु ी का दरवाजा खोला तो दे खा की आ रफ ने अपना िन र नीचे उतार रखा था तथा रै कशा के सारे कपड़े उतार रखे थे तथा उसे बेड पर ले टा रखा था जो रै कशा तु र रोती ई दौड़कर
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 5 of 37
मेरे पास आई तथा कहने लगी िक UNCLE अपनी पेशाब करने की जगह पर अपनी डालने की कोिशश कर रहे थे जो रै कशा काफी डरी ई थी जो मेरे शोर मचाया तो मेरा भाई िफरोज व अ लोग इक ा हो गये मने सारी बात उ बताई तो मेरे भाई िफरोज ने 100 नं० पर Phone कर िदया जो आ रफ ने मेरी लड़की रै कशा के साथ गलत काम करने की कोिशश की है । उसके खलाफ कानूनी कायवाही की जावे”
7. During the course of investigation, the Respondent/Accused was arrested, his personal search was conducted, and seizure memos were prepared. The site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared.
8. During the course of investigation, the statement of the
Prosecutrix/Victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr PC on 18th February 2012 by PW-11 the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. MM’), vide Ex.PW2/A. The relevant portion of the statement made by Prosecutrix/Victim under section 164 Cr PC is reproduced hereinbelow: “म अपने पापा-म ी के साथ रहती ँ । पड़ोस म आ रफ अंकल रहते ह। वो मेरे घर 10 बजे आए और मुझसे कहा िक शे खर और कुबेर अ ा की दु कान से ले आओ। हमारी गली के बाहर अ ा की दु कान है । िदन मुझे पता नहीं पर काफी िदन हो गए ह। म शे खर और कुबेर ले कर आई और आ रफ अंकल ने अपने घर के बाहर मुझे रोका और घर पर बुलाया। अ र बुलाके मेरी पजामी उतारी और अपना लु ी मेरी पेशाब वाली जगह म डालने की कोिशश करने लगे । थोड़ा सी लु ी उन अंकल ने डाल दी थी। िफर पापा ने घर से बाहर से मुझे आवाज दी थी। आ रफ अंकल ने पूरे हाथ से मेरा मुँह दबा रखा था। आवाज सुनते ही उ ोंने मुझे छोड़ िदया, मने पजामी पहनी और उ ोंने (अंकल) ने चेन बंद कर दी। म घर से भागकर अपने घर चली गई और म ी को
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 6 of 37 सब कुछ बताया। भागते समय मुझे आ रफ अंकल के घर के पास पापा भी िमले थे।“
9. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the
Respondent/Accused under Sections 376/511 of the IPC. Vide order dated 15th May, 2012, the Ld. Trial Court framed charges against the Respondent/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The Respondent/Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The material witnesses and their testimonies, are summarised hereinbelow.
Witnesses Statement In Chief Statement In Cross Examination Examination PW- 2 Accused Mohd. Arif, xxxx by Sh. S.N. (Prosecutrix present in court Qureshi, counsel for /Victim) (correctly identified), is accused. known to me being my I do not remember date, neighbour. One day in month and year of the night hours accused had incident. Accused had sent me to bring not done anything Dilbagh and Kuber wrong with me. It is (tobacco) from a nearby correct that on last date shop. I had brought the of hearing I had same and handed over deposed before this him at his house. court at the instance Accused had taken me one police official who inside his house and he had tutored me outside put off my pajami and the court. inserted his finger into At this stage, ld. APP my private part. I felt requests to re-examine pain. this witness as witness On asking by this court is suppressing the “what accused done material truth. Heard. with you”, witness Allowed.
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 7 of 37
states that “accused had It is wrong to suggest
inserted his penis into that today I have come
her vagina”. along with brother of
My father had called me accused. It is further
from outside when wrong to suggest that
accused had left me. I today I am deposing
dressed up and came falsely at the instance
out from the Jhuggi of of brother of accused in
accused. I had narrated order to save the
the aforesaid incident to accused. It is further
my mother at my house. wrong to suggest that I
My maternal uncle had am deposing falsely on
called police. Police the facts that on
took me to P.S., 22.05.2012, I had been
thereafter, I was taken tutored by police
to GTB Hospital by official.police along with my mother.
PW-4 Nilofer Name of my daughter is It is wrong to suggest (Mother Of -Kehkasha and her aged that accused Mohd. Prosecutrix/ is about 06 years at Arif had also left the my Victim) present. On 21.01.2012 house after some time at about 10:30 p:m. she and that by that time had gone outside my victim had not returned house in the gali after back to my house, 10-15 minutes she confronted portion B to returned weepingly, and B of statement told me that she fell. Ex.PW4/A where it is down and sustained so recorded. It is wrong injury. Someone from to suggest that I had public called police on reached at the house of seeing the condition of accused in search of my daughter as she was victim and that I had semi unconscious and seen him lying on the weeping loudly. Police bed and that victim was had taken my daughter also lying on the same to GTB Hospital. I had bed naked or that I had
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 8 of 37
also gone there where pushed the door of the
police had obtained my Jhuggi of accused or
signature on one paper, that my daughter came
same is Ex.PW4/A to me immediately and
which bears my that victim had told me
signature at point A. that accused Arif had
Vol. Said. At the time tried to insert his penis
when I put my signature into her vagina,
it was blank. Police confronted portion C to
never visited my house C of statement
after 22.01.2011. Ex.PW4/A where it is.
Accused present in so recorded. It is wrong
court is known to me to suggest that I had
being resident of our raised alarm on seeing
mohalla. Accused did the wrong act
not commit any wrong committed by accused
act with my daughter. I Arif and that my
do not know other facts brother Firoz and some
of this ease. other mohalla peoplegathered or that my brother Firoz had made call at 100 number, confronted portion D to D of statement Ex.PW4/A where it is so recorded. XXX It is wrong to suggest that police had inspected place of occurrence i.e. Jhuggi of accused in my presence or that I had told to police that accused had committed wrong act upon victim in my presence at that time. It is further wrong
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 9 of 37 to suggest that accused was arrested at about 6;30 a.m. on 22.01.2012 in my presence or that I had told to police at that time that accused had committed wrong act with my daughter.
PW-6 Nilofer On the intervening night … it is wrong to (Uncle of of 21st & 22nd, suggest that accused the Victim) January'2012, I was Arif had been arrested returning to my house at the spot in my and I noticed gathering presence on being of some people there. produced by father of Some people had told victim. Voi. I had put me there that some my signature on arrest wrong act had been memo lateron at the committed upon the request of police. victim. I had informed to police at 100 number about the incident. I do not know by whom wrong act had been committed upon victim. Police reached at the spot. Father of victim was present among the public persons. I do not know the other facts of this case. PW-7 Nilofer … My daughter, victim XXX by ld. APP for the (Father of is 7 years old at present. State the Victim) On intervening night of XXX 21-22 January'2012, I … It is further wrong to returned to my house on suggest that police had completion of my duty. arrested accused Arif in
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 10 of 37
At that time, victim was my presence. It is
watching T.V. at my further wrong to
house. Accused present suggest that I had told
in court had come at to police at the time of
our house at about arrest that accused Arif
10:30 p.m. when I was had committed wrong
taking meal. Accused act upon victim. It is
had sent victim to bring further wrong to
two pouch of tobacco suggest that police had
(gutka) from market. prepared arrest memo
Victim did not return Ex.PW6/B at spot in my
and we started search presence and that I had
after 15 minutes. put my thumb
During search victim impression at point B.
was found inside the Vol. said. I had put my
room of accused when thumb impression on
accused was repairing the arrest memo later
electricity in his house. on at Police Station.
Accused had left my … it is further wrong to
house after about five suggest that I have
minutes after sending been won over by the
the victim for accused or that I am
purchasing gutka from deposing falsely in
market. On reaching at order to save the
the house of accused accused. It is further
there was dark and I wrong to suggest that I
took her back to my have settled the matter
house. Thereafter, I with accused outside
went to market and the court.returned after two and half hours. At that time police officials were present and they took victim to GTB Hospital for her medical examination, I do not know other facts of this case. Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 11 of 37
PW- 8 Ct. Victim aged about 6 Ashok years along with her Kumar mother Smt. Nilofer met us there. S.I. Fateh Singh interrogated them. Accused Arif, present in court (correctly identified), was produced before us by the public. Smt. Nilofer told us that accused Arif had taken victim and attempted to commit rape upon victim. XXX S.I. Fateh Singh statement of Smt. Nilofer and made endorsement to get the FIR of present case registered for offence u/s 376/511 IPC. Ct. Ram Kumar was sent to P.S. along with rukka for registration of FIR. Investigation of this case was assigned to S.I. Sarita.
11. The medical evidence, including the MLC of the victim, indicated that the hymen was intact and only a small abrasion was present. The FSL report being Ex. PW- 10/B, also did not detect semen on the exhibits examined.
12. Upon the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the Respondent/Accused was recorded under Section 313Cr PC. The Respondent/Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 12 of 37
evidence put to him, claimed to be innocent, and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The Respondent/Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
13. The Ld. Trial Court vide the Impugned Judgment dated 10th May,
2013, acquitted the Respondent/Accused of the charge under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC extending to him the benefit of doubt. The operative reasoning of the Ld. Trial Court, as recorded in the Impugned Judgment, reads as under:
“56. Considering the circumstances coupled with the facts of the case and evidence available on record, this court is of the view that testimony of minor should be scrutinized carefully while relying upon her testimony. In the present case, victim had stated that she had deposed at the instance of police official who had tutored her outside the court and complainant had also suggest that victim had sustained abrasion while fallen down and MLC also suggest that small abrasion but doctor had not explained any fact to this effect. Hence, in these circumstances, testimony of victim and her mother are not sufficient to convict the accused. Hence, he is acquitted from charges u/s 376 (2) (f) IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.
57.1n terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C., accused Mohd. Arif is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount for the period of months. File be consigned to record room.”
14. The Ld. Trial Court thus rested its finding of acquittal principally on three considerations: first, that the Prosecutrix/Victim had herself stated in cross-examination that she had been tutored by a police official; second, that Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 13 of 37
the complainant/PW-4 had stated that the abrasion on the Prosecutrix/Victim was the result of a fall and third, that the MLC did not affirmatively support the prosecution's version and no medical explanation was forthcoming from the examining doctor.
15. The State being aggrieved by the aforesaid Impugned Judgment and
order of acquittal has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the
Cr PC. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
16. Mr. Bahri, Ld. APP appearing for the state submits that the
Prosecutrix/Victim (PW-2), who was approximately six years of age at the time of the incident, had categorically supported the case of the prosecution in her examination-in-chief dated 22nd May 2012, wherein she clearly identified the Respondent/Accused and narrated the incident in detail. The said testimony is stated to be consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 of theCr PC.
17. It is further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erred in discarding the
said testimony merely on account of the Prosecutrix/Victim turning hostile at a later stage, i.e., during her cross-examination conducted on 8th August 2012, after a lapse of about two and a half months. It is contended that the Prosecutrix/Victim had initially narrated the incident in detail, and her subsequent retraction ought to have been scrutinized in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the possibility of her being influenced or won over.
18. The Ld. APP submits that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly acquitted the Respondent/Accused by placing undue reliance on the subsequent Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 14 of 37
statement of the Prosecutrix/Victim wherein she claimed that the Respondent/Accused had not committed any wrongful act and that her earlier testimony was allegedly given under tutoring by a police official. It is contended that such a statement could not have been accepted at face value, particularly in the absence of any material suggesting any motive on the part of the police to falsely implicate the Respondent/Accused. Rather, it is submitted that the circumstances indicate that the Prosecutrix/Victim may have been won over, leading to her hostility.
19. It is further submitted that the prompt registration of the FIR, the
immediate medical examination and the apprehension of the Respondent/Accused at or near the spot, lend assurance to the prosecution case and corroborate the version of the Prosecutrix/Victim.
20. The Ld. APP thereafter points out the testimony of the hostile
witnesses, submitting that the Ld. Trial Court erroneously characterised PW- 6 and PW-7 as witnesses who had not supported the prosecution at all. On the contrary, it was submitted that PW-6 had deposed that on the intervening night of 21st and 22nd January, 2012, he noticed a gathering of people at the spot, was informed that a wrong act had been committed upon the victim, and had immediately called the police at the 100 number. It was urged that this testimony of PW-6 which was made immediately after the incident and cannot be dismissed as non-supportive. Similarly, it was submitted that PW- 7, the father of the victim, had in his deposition stated that the Respondent/Accused had come to their house at about 10:30 p.m. and had sent the victim to the market to purchase tobacco and that the victim did not return for fifteen minutes. Then upon searching, the victim was found inside the room of the Respondent/Accused. It was submitted that these are
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 15 of 37 material pieces of corroboration and go to the root of the prosecution's case, none of which were adverted to or considered by the Ld. Trial Court in the Impugned Judgment.
21. The Ld. APP submits that the MLC of the Prosecutrix/Victim vide
Ex.PW13/A records abrasion marks on the Prosecutrix/Victim. It is submitted that PW-13 Dr. Modesta, who proved the said MLC, was not cross-examined by the defence at all, and the MLC must therefore be treated as having been admitted and accepted. It is further submitted that the presence of abrasions, when read alongside the consistent account given by the Prosecutrix/Victim in her statement and examination-in-chief, lends material corroboration to the prosecution's case. Ld. APP urged that the Ld. Trial Court erred in treating the MLC as not supporting the prosecution, without there being any expert opinion or medical evidence to suggest that the abrasions were consistent with a fall rather than with sexual assault.
22. The Ld. APP further submits that the Ld. Trial Court committed an
error of law in ignoring the examination-in-chief of PW-2 and placing reliance exclusively upon the improved and retracted version given by her in cross-examination. It was urged that settled law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P., AIR 1991 SC 1853, holds that where a witness substantially supports the case of the prosecution in examination-in-chief and thereafter turns hostile in cross- examination, the cross-examination cannot be used to wipe out or efface the examination-in-chief altogether. The credible portions of the evidence, particularly the examination-in-chief, are required to be accepted and acted upon after careful scrutiny. It is submitted that this settled legal position found no reference whatsoever in the Impugned Judgment.
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 16 of 37
23. It is further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider
that even in the statement of the Respondent/Accused under Section 313 of the Cr PC, there is no substantive defence taken, and the Respondent/Accused has merely denied the allegations without offering any explanation. It is argued that once the foundational facts were established through the testimony of the Prosecutrix/Victim and corroborative circumstances, the burden to rebut the same was not discharged by the Respondent/Accused.
24. The Ld. APP also submits that the Impugned Judgment is extremely
cursory and lacks proper reasoning, with the analysis being confined to a limited discussion and without dealing with crucial aspects such as the examination-in-chief of the Prosecutrix/Victim, her statement under Section 164 Cr PC, the medical evidence, and the settled legal position regarding hostile witnesses. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
25. Per contra, Ld. counsel appearing for the Respondent/Accused
opposes the present appeal and supports the Impugned Judgment of Acquittal, submitting that no interference is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
26. At the outset, it is contended that the entire prosecution case has failed
to meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the foundational requirement of a criminal case. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Respondent/Accused.
27. Ld. counsel submitted that an appraisal of the evidence on record Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 17 of 37
reveals that not a single material prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that out of the four principal material witnesses examined by the prosecution, not one has deposed in terms of the prosecution's case. PW-2, the Prosecutrix/Victim herself, retracted from her earlier version and categorically stated in her deposition that the Respondent/Accused had not done anything wrong with her. PW-4, the mother of the victim and the original complainant, deposed that the victim had gone outside her house in the gali and returned weeping after 10-15 minutes, stating that she had fallen down and sustained injury. She categorically denied that the Respondent/Accused had committed any wrong act with her daughter. PW-6 and PW-7, uncle and the father of the victim, also did not support the prosecution's case in material particulars and were accordingly declared hostile by the State. It is submitted that when the totality of the evidence is seen in this light, the entire edifice of the prosecution's case stands demolished.
28. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submits that even the
father of the Prosecutrix/Victim (PW-7) has given a vague version, merely stating that the child was found in the vicinity of the Accused juggi, which by itself does not establish the commission of any offence. It is argued that such testimony, being hearsay in nature and lacking specificity, cannot form the basis of conviction.
29. The Ld. counsel places reliance upon the deposition of PW-4, the
mother of the Prosecutrix/Victim, to submit that the abrasion noted in the MLC of the Prosecutrix/Victim has been adequately explained. It is submitted that the mother herself, the natural guardian of the child and the person best positioned to know the circumstances, has deposed before the Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 18 of 37
court that the victim returned home weeping and informed her that she had fallen down and sustained injury. The Ld. Counsel submits that this explanation consistent as it is with the MLC finding of a small abrasion with an intact hymen provides a credible account of the victim’s injuries, wholly inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory of sexual assault.
30. On the medical evidence, the Ld. Counsel submits that the MLC of
the Prosecutrix/Victim vide Ex.PW13/A records that the hymen was intact and that there was merely a small abrasion. It is submitted that the MLC, far from supporting the prosecution's case, effectively goes against it. The Ld. Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the observations made during the course of hearing, noting that the MLC discloses no bleeding, no significant injury to any vital part, and no finding consistent with penetrative sexual assault. It is submitted that a small abrasion, standing alone and unexplained by the examining doctor as being referable to the alleged act, cannot be treated as corroborating the version of the Prosecutrix/Victim with respect to rape or attempt to rape.
31. It is further contended that the entire case of the prosecution suffers
from lack of corroboration, and there is no independent evidence to support the allegations made in the examination-in-chief of the Prosecutrix/Victim. It is submitted that when multiple prosecution witnesses have failed to support the case, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the Respondent/Accused. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
32. The Court has considered the matter.
33. The principal issue before this Court is whether the Ld. Trial Court Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 19 of 37
was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the Respondent/Accused and acquitting him of the charge under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC on the basis of the evidence led during the trial.
34. Before adverting to the aforesaid issues and the submissions advanced by the parties, it would also be necessary to briefly notice the nature of evidence led by the prosecution during the course of the trial.
35. A reading of the evidence led by the prosecution would show that the
case primarily rests upon the testimony of the Prosecutrix/Victim and the statement allegedly made by her immediately after the incident. While the Prosecutrix/Victim, in her examination-in-chief, supported the allegations against the Respondent/Accused, the same witness, in her cross- examination, resiled from the allegations and stated that the Respondent/Accused had not committed any wrong act with her. The complainant i.e., PW-4 the mother of the Prosecutrix/Victim, who made the complaint on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered, also did not support the prosecution case before the Court and attributed the injuries suffered by the child to a fall outside the house. The remaining public witnesses and family members similarly did not support the prosecution version in material particulars.
36. The medical and forensic evidence led by the prosecution also does
not furnish conclusive corroboration to the allegations levelled against the Respondent/Accused. The MLC of the Prosecutrix/Victim records that the hymen was intact and notes a small abrasion, however, no medical opinion was brought on record conclusively connecting the said injury with the offence alleged. The FSL reports also did not detect semen on the exhibits examined. The medical examination of the Respondent/Accused similarly
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 20 of 37 did not reveal any external injuries.
37. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence that the findings returned by the Ld. Trial Court and the submissions advanced by the parties are required to be examined.
38. The principal submission of the Prosecution is that the Ld. Trial Court
committed an error in placing reliance upon the cross-examination of the Prosecutrix/Victim while disregarding her examination-in-chief and her statement under Section 164 Cr PC. According to the Prosecution, the testimony of the Prosecutrix/Victim in examination-in-chief clearly established the role of the Respondent/Accused and the subsequent hostility of the witness ought not to have resulted in acquittal.
39. It is a well settled principle the merely because a witness is declared
hostile, the entirety of the testimony does not become inadmissible. The Court is entitled to rely upon those portions of the testimony which inspire confidence and are corroborated by other material available on record. At the same time, the Court cannot selectively read only one portion of the evidence while completely ignoring another material portion of the same testimony.
40. In the present case, the Prosecutrix/Victim- PW-2, in her
examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution case. She identified the Respondent/Accused as her neighbour and stated that he had taken her inside his jhuggi, removed her lower garment and inserted his finger into her private part. She further stated, in response to a question put by the Court, that the accused had inserted his penis into her vagina. The relevant portion of the statement made by the PW-2 Prosecutrix/Victim are reproduced hereinbelow:
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 21 of 37 Witnesses Statement In Chief Examination
PW- 2 Accused Mohd. Arif, present in court (Prosecutrix (correctly identified), is known to me /Victim) being my neighbour. One day in night hours accused had sent me to bring Dilbagh and Kuber (tobacco) from a nearby shop. I had brought the same and handed over him at his house. Accused had taken me inside his house and he put off my pajami and inserted his finger into my private part. I felt pain. On asking by this court “what accused done with you”, witness states that “accused had inserted his penis into her vagina”.
41. However, in her cross-examination conducted the Prosecutrix/Victim
categorically stated that the accused had not done anything wrong with her. She further stated that on the earlier date she had deposed before the Court at the instance of a police official who had tutored her outside the court. The relevant portion of the statement made by the PW-2 Prosecutrix/Victim are reproduced hereinbelow:
Witnesses Statement In Cross Examination PW- 2 xxxx by Sh. S.N. Qureshi, counsel for (Prosecutrix accused. /Victim) I do not remember date, month and year of the incident. Accused had not done anything wrong with me. It is correct that on last date of hearing I had deposed before this court at the instance Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 22 of 37 one police official who had tutored me outside the court. At this stage, ld. APP requests to re- examine this witness as witness is suppressing the material truth. Heard. Allowed.
42. The submission made by the Prosecution is that the subsequent
retraction by the Prosecutrix/Victim ought to have been ignored on the ground that she had been won over by the Respondent/Accused. However, except for the suggestion put to the witness by the Ld. APP, there is no substantive material on record to establish that the witness was won over, threatened or coerced. On the contrary, the witness herself attributed her earlier statement before the Ld. Trial Court to tutoring by a police official.
43. The cross-examination of a witness is an integral part of the evidence and cannot be excluded from consideration. Once the Prosecutrix/Victim herself resiled from the allegations and attributed her earlier statement to tutoring.
44. The Prosecution has also placed reliance upon the statement of the
Prosecutrix/Victim recorded under Section 164 Cr PC. The relevant portion of the statement is reproduced hereinbelow: “अ र बुलाके मेरी पजामी उतारी और अपना लु ी मेरी पेशाब वाली जगह म डालने की कोिशश करने लगे । थोड़ा सी लु ी उन अंकल ने डाल दी थी। िफर पापा ने घर से बाहर से मुझे आवाज दी थी। आ रफ अंकल ने पूरे हाथ से मेरा मुँह दबा रखा था। आवाज सुनते ही उ ोंने मुझे छोड़ िदया, मने पजामी पहनी और उ ोंने (अंकल) ने चेन बंद कर दी। म घर से भागकर अपने घर चली गई और म ी को सब कुछ बताया।“
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 23 of 37
45. However, it is a settled law that a statement under Section 164 Cr PC
is not substantive evidence. Such a statement can only be used for the purpose of corroboration. Once the witness herself withdraws from the allegations while deposing before the Court, the statement under Section 164 Cr PC by itself cannot form the sole basis for conviction unless there exists reliable corroborative evidence
46. In the present case, the testimony of PW-4, the mother of the
Prosecutrix/Victim and the complainant upon whose statement the FIR was registered, assumes considerable importance. PW-4 did not support the prosecution case in the Court. She stated that the child had gone outside the house and after some time returned weeping and informed her that she had fallen down and sustained injuries. She categorically stated that the Respondent/Accused had not committed any wrong act with her daughter. The relevant portion of the statement made by PW-4 is reproduced hereinbelow: Witness Statement in Examination in Chief PW- 4 . On 21.01.2012 at about 10:30 p:m. she (Mother Of had gone outside my house in the gali Prosecutrix after 10-15 minutes she returned /Victim) weepingly, and told me that she fell. down and sustained injury. Someone from public called police on seeing the condition of my daughter as she was semi unconscious and weeping loudly. Police had taken my daughter to GTB Hospital. I had also gone there where police had obtained my signature on one paper, same is Ex.PW4/A which bears my signature at point A. Vol. Said. At the time when I put my signature it was blank. Police never visited my house after 22.01.2011.
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 24 of 37 Accused present in court is known to me being resident of our mohalla. Accused did not commit any wrong act with my daughter. I do not know other facts of this case.
47. Even during her cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW-
4 denied the suggestions put to her regarding the allegations of sexual assault. She denied that the Respondent/Accused had taken the Prosecutrix/Victim to his jhuggi or attempted to rape her. The relevant portion of the statement made by PW-4 in cross-examination is reproduced hereinbelow: Witness Statement in Cross Examination PW4 It is wrong to suggest that I had reached (Mother of at the house of accused in search of Prosecutrix victim and that I had seen him lying on /Victim) the bed and that victim was also lying on the same bed naked or that I had pushed the dopr of the Jhuggi of accused or that my daughter came to me immediately and that victim had told me that accused Arif had tried to insert his penis into her vagina, confronted portion C to C of statement Ex.PW4/A where it is. so recorded. XXX I had told to police at that time that accused had committed wrong act with my daughter.
48. Thus, the complainant herself did not support the prosecution case before the Court. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that the very foundation of the prosecution case stood substantially weakened by the Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 25 of 37 testimony of PW-4.
49. PW-6(uncle of the prosecutrix) and PW-7(father of the prosecutrix),
who are also material witnesses in the present case, did not support the prosecution version in material particulars. The relevant portion of the statement made by PW-6 and PW-7 are reproduced hereinbelow:
Witnesses Statement In Examination In Chief PW- 6 On the intervening night of 21st & 22nd, (Uncle of January'2012, I was returning to my the Victim) house and I noticed gathering of some people there. Some people had told me there that some wrong act had been committed upon the victim. I had informed to police at 100 number about the incident. I do not know by whom wrong act had been committed upon victim. PW-7 Accused had left my house after about (Father of five minutes after sending the victim for the Victim) purchasing gutka from market. On reaching at the house of accused there was dark and I took her back to my house. Thereafter, I went to market and returned after two and half hours. At that time police officials were present and they took victim to GTB Hospital for her medical examination, I do not know other facts of this case.
50. On a perusal of the aforesaid testimony, it emerges that PW-6 merely
stated that certain persons informed him that some wrong act had been committed with the Prosecutrix/Victim, pursuant to which he informed the police regarding the incident. However, he specifically stated that he did not know who had allegedly committed the act in question. Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 26 of 37
51. Similarly, the testimony of PW-7, who is the father of the
Prosecutrix/Victim, also does not substantively establish the commission of the offence alleged against the Respondent/Accused. PW-7 merely stated that upon reaching the house of the Respondent/Accused, he did not witness anything incriminating and thereafter took the Prosecutrix/Victim with him to his house and subsequently proceeded towards the market. Thus, the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7 do not furnish material corroboration to the prosecution case nor do they inspire sufficient confidence regarding the occurrence alleged by the prosecution.
52. The remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are primarily
police officials and formal witnesses. Their testimonies establish the steps taken during investigation such as registration of the FIR, arrest of the accused, preparation of the site plan, seizure of exhibits and dispatch of samples to the FSL. However, these witnesses do not provide substantive corroboration regarding the actual occurrence alleged by the prosecution.
53. In light of the aforesaid inconsistencies, it becomes necessary to
examine whether the medical evidence lends any support to the prosecution case. The relevant portion of the MLC of Prosecutrix/victim is extracted hereinbelow: “Local Examination (P/A & L/E): P/A (Per Abdomen): Soft, no organomegaly. L/E (Local Examination): * Hymen: Intact. Local Findings: Small abrasion at posterior fourchette. Pain/Tenderness: Tenderness present, no active bleeding.”
54. The prosecution has argued that the presence of injury i.e. the small Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 27 of 37
abrasion noted in the MLC lends corroboration to the version initially given by the Prosecutrix/Victim. However, the evidentiary value of the MLC has to be appreciated in light of the entirety of the medical evidence brought on record.
55. A perusal of the MLC also shows that the hymen of the
Prosecutrix/Victim was found to be intact during medical examination. Though the hymen being intact by itself cannot rule out sexual assault or attempted penetrative assault, the same nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance while appreciating the overall evidentiary value of the medical record, especially in a case where the ocular testimony itself suffers from substantial inconsistencies.
56. PW-13 Dr. Modesta, who proved the MLC on behalf of the
examining doctor, did not depose that the injuries recorded in the MLC were indicative of forcible sexual assault or attempted rape. No categorical medical opinion was brought on record to establish that the abrasion noted in the MLC could only have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The relevant portion of the statement made by PW-13 is reproduced hereinbelow:
Witnesses Statement In Chief Examination
PW- 13 Dr. I have worked with Dr. Shruti B at GTB Modesta Hospital and as such I am acquainted with (victim her writing and signature. She has left MLC) service from GTB Hospital and her present whereabouts are not known to me. I have seen the MLC No.G-8/12 available on judicial file which was prepared by Dr. Shruti B and I identify her signature at
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 28 of 37 point A. The MLC Mark X is now Ex.PW13/A.
57. It is also significant that PW- 4, the mother of the Prosecutrix/Victim,
in her deposition before the Court stated that the child had informed her that she had fallen down outside the house and had sustained injuries. This explanation furnished by PW-4 regarding the source of injury assumes relevance because the medical evidence itself does not conclusively attribute the abrasion to sexual assault.
58. The forensic evidence led by the prosecution also requires careful
consideration. The prosecution placed reliance upon the FSL reports Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C which were collected during the course of investigation by PW10 W/SI Sarita.
59. However, a perusal of the FSL reports would show that semen could
not be detected on the exhibits examined by the forensic laboratory. The Ld. Trial Court has specifically noticed that the reports Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C recorded negative findings insofar as detection of semen on the relevant exhibits was concerned. The findings of the relevant FSL reports are extracted hereinbelow:
Ex.PW10/B: Parcel '1 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MLC GTB HOSPITAL DELHI-95" containing exhibit '1' kept in paper stated to be of accused. Exhibit '1' : Gauze cloth piece having yellowish sticky stains described as 'Semen sample'. Parcel '2' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "MLC GTB HOSPITAL DELHI-95" containing exhibit '2' stated to be of accused.
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 29 of 37
Exhibit '2' : Gauze cloth piece having dark brown stains described as 'Blood sample' . Parcel '3' : One sealed cardboard box sealed with the seal of "MLC GTB HOSPITAL DELHI-95" containing exhibits '3a1', '3a2', '3a3', '3b1', '3b2', '3b3', '3c1', '3c2', '3c3', '3d1', '3d2', '3e' each kept in-separate envelope stated to be of victim. Exhibit ‘3a1’ : One dirty small sized paijami. Exhibit ‘3a2’ : One dirty small sized underwear. Exhibit ‘3a3’ : One dirty small sized woollen jersey. Exhibit ‘3b1’ : One Cotton wool swab on stick described as ‘Vaginal Secretion’. Exhibit ‘3b2’ & ‘3b3’ : Two microslides having very faint smear described as ‘Vaginal Secretion’. Exhibit ‘3c1’ : One Cotton wool swab on stick, kept in tube described as ‘Oral Swab’. Exhibit ‘3c2’ & ‘3c3’ : Two microslides described as ‘Oral Examination’. Exhibit ‘3d1’ & ‘3d2’ : Dark brown foul smelling liquid kept in tubes described as ‘Blood sample of victim’. Exhibit ‘3e’ : Dirty liquid kept in plastic container described as ‘Urine sample’. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
1. Blood was detected on exhibit ‘2’ ‘3d1’ & ‘3d2’
2. Blood could not be detected on exhibits ‘3a1’, ‘3a2’, ‘3a3’, ‘3b1’, ‘3c1’ & ‘3e’.
3. Human semen was detected on exhibit ‘1’.
4. Semen could not be detected on exhibits ‘3a1’, ‘3a2’, ‘3a3’, ‘3b1’, ‘3b2’, ‘3b3’, ‘3c1’, ‘3c2’, ‘3c3’ & ‘3e’.
5. Report of serological analysis in original is attached here with.” Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 30 of 37 Ex.PW10/C
Species of ABO Exhibits Origin Grouping/Remarks Blood Stains:- ‘2’ Gauze cloth piece Human ‘B’ Group ‘3d1’ Blood sample Blood putrefied, hence no sample ----- opinion Blood sample ‘3d2’Blood putrefied, hence no sample ----- opinion Semen Stains:- ‘1’ Gauze cloth piece ----- No Reaction
60. From the above Report it is clear that apart from Exhibit 1, there was no presence of semen on any sample. Exhibit 1 was the semen sample given by the Respondent/Accused himself.
61. The absence of semen or a negative forensic report, by itself, cannot
be treated as conclusive proof negating the allegation of sexual assault. However, the negative FSL findings, when read conjointly with the inconsistent testimony of the Prosecutrix/Victim and the inconclusive medical evidence, this court is of the view that the Ld. Trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the Respondent/Accused.
62. The Supreme Court in Nirmal Premkumar and Anr. V. State Rep. by Inspector of Police., 2024 INSC 193, held as under:
11. Law is well settled that generally speaking, Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 31 of 37
oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) wholly reliable; (ii) wholly unreliable; (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the Court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
12. In Ganesan v. State, this Court held that the
sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused. 13. This Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter involving gang rape allegations under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)5. The Court found totally conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated in the complaint and what was deposed before Court, resulting in material inconsistencies. Reversing the conviction and holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a ‘sterling witness’, the Court opined as under:
“22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 32 of 37
point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in
order to enable the court trying the offence to rely
on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” (underlining ours, for emphasis) Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 33 of 37
14. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana,
this Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus: XXX
15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is
that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.”
63. The Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3
SCC 443, held that where the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from material contradictions and does not inspire confidence, and where medical as well as forensic evidence do not support the prosecution case, conviction cannot be sustained solely on such testimony. The Supreme Court further
held that in such circumstances, the accused would be entitled to the benefit
of doubt. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement are reproduced Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 34 of 37
hereinbelow: “6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable. In the examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix has stated that after jumping the fallen compound wall the accused came inside and thereafter the accused committed rape. She has stated that she identified the accused from the light of the mobile. However, no mobile is recovered. Even nothing is on record that there was a broken compound wall. She has further stated that in the morning at 10 o'clock she went to the police station and gave oral complaint. However, according to the investigating officer a written complaint was given. It is also required to be noted that even the FIR is registered at 4.00 p.m. In her deposition, the prosecutrix has referred to the name of Shanti Devi, PW 1 and others. However, Shanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, when we tested the version of PW 5, prosecutrix, it is unfortunate that the said witness has failed to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. There is a variation in her version about giving the complaint. There is a delay in the FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. As admitted, there was an enmity/dispute between both the parties with respect to land. The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the solitary version of the prosecutrix, PW 5 cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 35 of 37 no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and the accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.”
64. A similar principle was reiterated in Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018)
18 SCC 695, wherein the Supreme Court held that where the testimony of the prosecutrix is inconsistent and unsupported by medical evidence, conviction would not be sustainable merely on assumptions. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement are reproduced hereinbelow: “In our considered opinion, the trial court as well as the High Court have convicted the appellants without considering the aforementioned factors in their proper perspective. The testimony of the victim is full of inconsistencies and does not find support from any other evidence whatsoever. Moreover, the evidence of the informant/victim is inconsistent and self-destructive at different places. It is noticeable that the medical record and the doctor's evidence do not specify whether there were any signs of forcible sexual intercourse. It seems that the first information report was lodged with false allegations to extract revenge from the appellants, who had uncovered the theft of forest produce by the informant and her husband. The High Court has, in our considered opinion, brushed aside the various inconsistencies pointed out by us only on the ground that the victim could not have deposed falsely before the Court. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of assumptions, conjectures and surmises, inasmuch as such assumptions are not corroborated by any reliable evidence.
65. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and the material inconsistencies emerging in the testimony of Prosecutrix/Victim PW-2 and Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 36 of 37
the other material witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution's case does not inspire confidence and gives rise to a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the medical evidence does not support or corroborate the prosecution case and, therefore, does not lend any assurance to the case set up by the prosecution.
CONCLUSION:
66. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the Ld. Trial Court is plausible and no perversity, illegality, or manifest error is made out so as to warrant interference with the order of acquittal.
67. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment of Acquittal passed by the Ld. Trial Court is upheld.
68. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
69. The personal bonds and surety bonds of the Respondent, if any, are also discharged. MADHU JAIN JUDGE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MAY 20, 2026/P Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 37 of 37