Delhi High Court
State vs Mohd. Arif on 20 May, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
* 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 ‘CrPC‘) 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‘).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 1 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 2 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 3 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
Modesta Shruti B at GTB Hospital
(victim and as such I am
MLC) acquainted with her
writing 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 4 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.
22/2012 under Sections 376/511 of the IPC, was registered at P.S.
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 दौड़करSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 5 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 CrPC 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 CrPC 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 ी कोSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 6 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 7 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 8 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 people
gathered 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 9 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 10 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 11 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 313CrPC. The
Respondent/Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 12 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 13 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
CrPC.
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 theCrPC.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 14 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 15 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 16 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 CrPC, 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 CrPC, 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 17 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 18 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 19 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 20 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 CrPC. 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:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 21 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 instanceSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 22 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 CrPC. 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।”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 23 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
45. However, it is a settled law that a statement under Section 164 CrPC
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
CrPC 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 24 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 25 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 26 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 27 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 28 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 29 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 30 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 31 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 startingSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 32 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 33 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 34 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 isSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 35 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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 andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 36 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA CRL.A. 126/2015 Page 37 of 37
NEGI
Signing Date:22.05.2026
14:42:43
