Allahabad HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction as Child's Testimony Found Unreliable

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man previously sentenced to life imprisonment for rape, ruling that the conviction based on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of an eight-year-old child witness cannot be sustained when her statements show significant improvements and are unsupported by medical evidence.

Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay presided over the appeal challenging the order of the Special Court (POCSO Act), Auraiya. The bench scrutinized the reliability of the child witness, emphasizing that while law prioritizes the quality of evidence over quantity, a child's testimony must be natural and untutored to inspire confidence.

Assessing the Testimony of a Child Witness

The Court analyzed the provisions under Section 134 and Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that a child is a competent witness if they can provide rational answers. However, the bench highlighted the necessity of caution, citing Panchhi and Ors. v. State of U.P., which mandates that child evidence be evaluated with circumspection due to the susceptibility of tutoring.

The Court has the following directions:

"The present Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Auraiya in Special Case No. 34P/2017 (State Vs. Kuntesh) is hereby set aside. The appellant, Kuntesh, is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act. He is directed to be released from custody forthwith, provided his detention is not required in any other criminal case. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Upon an objective consideration of the factual matrix of the present case, it is highly doubtful that victim (PW-1) can be elevated to the status of a sterling witness as improvements are made by her in her statements. ... In the cases where the prosecutrix made improvements in her statements step by step, it becomes difficult to ascertain that which of her version is trustworthy and reliable. ... Additionally, the case of the prosecution does not find firm corroboration from medical evidence."

Absence of Medical Corroboration and Material Improvements

Inconsistencies in Prosecution Narrative

The court observed that the initial report lodged by the father only alleged physical assault under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh ( "(1996) 2 SCC 384": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 1295) establishes that delay in reporting sexual assault is not always fatal, the court found it significant that the father remained silent on rape even during trial.

The Standard of a Sterling Witness

Referring to Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) ( "(2012) 8 SCC 21": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 82), the bench noted that a "sterling witness" must be of such impeccable quality that the version is accepted as the unvarnished truth. In this case, the allegation of rape appeared for the first time only in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Furthermore, the court cited State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ lalla and Urmila Devi vs State of H.P. and others ( "2025:HHC:34588-DB": 2025 CaseBase(HP) 1519) to reiterate that while conviction can be based on a sole testimony, the court must be extremely careful when witnesses make progressive improvements in their stories.

Background:

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on January 31, 2019, for offenses under Section 376 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3 and Section 4 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that on May 9, 2017, the appellant lured an eight-year-old girl into his house and sexually assaulted her. The defense argued that the case was a result of old enmity and pointed out that the medical officer (PW-4) stated rape was not necessarily committed, as there were no internal or external injuries. The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellant.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5563 of 2019
Case Title: Kuntesh Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ajay Singh Sengar, Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Vijay Singh Sengar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 214