Delhi High Court Quashes Rape Convictions Citing Material Improvements in Prosecutrix's Testimony

A single‑judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha heard appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. filed by accused nos. 1 and 3 against a sessions court judgment dated 20.12.2016 which had convicted them for offences including rape (Sections 376 and 376(2)(g) IPC), wrongful confinement and assault. The appeals arose from Sessions Case Nos. 16/2013 and 2301/2016, where the trial court had convicted accused nos. 1 (A1) and 3 (A3) and sentenced them to lengthy terms of imprisonment; accused no. 4 (an auto‑driver) had earlier been acquitted.

The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted A1 and A3 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., concluding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge observed that the prosecution case chiefly rested on the prosecutrix (PW3) whose testimony showed material contradictions and improvements. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of PW3. It is well settled that a conviction for an offence under Section 375 IPC can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if such testimony is of sterling quality. Where the evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies, or improvements going to the root of the prosecution case, the Court is duty‑bound to seek corroboration. ... Such a version should consistently match the version of every other witness." The court held that, in the circumstances, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the appellants.

Background

The prosecutrix (PW3) reported that she was wrongfully confined at a Govind Puri house and repeatedly raped and assaulted by multiple persons over a prolonged period; she alleged that A1 and A2 kept her confined and that A3 administered injections, arranged men to assault her and also raped her. An FIR was registered on 12.06.2012; the investigating officer recorded the FIS, sent PW3 for medical examination and filed the chargesheet. At trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses and relied principally on PW3's testimony, while independent witnesses PW12 and PW14 described seeing a girl in a bathroom and summoning police. The trial court convicted A1 and A3 and sentenced them to concurrent terms (A1 received terms including eleven years for an offence under Section 376(2)(g); A3 received ten years for Section 376(2)(g)); A4 was acquitted.

On appeal, defence counsel argued that PW3's account underwent "material improvements" and contained serious inconsistencies — notably the FIS recorded the offence as occurring about seven days prior to rescue, whereas before the trial court PW3 asserted confinement for nearly one year; the FIS and the MLC did not attribute a clear role to A3. The State maintained that PW3's testimony was corroborated. The High Court examined the record and found that several critical aspects of PW3's narrative had significantly changed between the FIS, the MLC and deposition. As the judgment noted, "Such a drastic variation cannot be treated as a minor discrepancy." The medical record (MLC) did not mention A3 and did not support allegations of external or internal injuries consistent with repeated sexual assaults; independent witnesses corroborated only the fact of rescue, not the prolonged confinement or multiple assaults. The court further observed that PW3 had multiple opportunities to raise alarm or escape, including being taken out of the house on several occasions and attending a medical consultation, and had given birth during the period she later alleged as prolonged confinement — circumstances that, in the court’s view, undermined the prosecution’s version.

Relying on settled principles that a sole prosecutrix’s testimony must be of "sterling quality" or be corroborated when it contains material contradictions, the court concluded the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 and A3 beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside, A1 and A3 were acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty, and their bail bonds were cancelled. No further interim directions were issued.

Case No.: CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Case Title: Manoj v. State; Mukesh v. State NCT of Delhi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Azhar Qayum, Advocate; Mr. Rohan J. Alva, Advocate (DHCLSC) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Lokesh Kumar, PS‑Govindpuri; Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Mr. Shaurya Lamba and Ms. Ishita Sehrawat, Advocates for the prosecutrix