Introduction:
In Deepak Kumar @ Sunny and Another v. State of Bihar, the Patna High Court was called upon to examine the validity of a conviction recorded under serious penal provisions, including Sections 366A and 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case arose out of a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated May 3, 2018, and the order of sentence dated May 10, 2018, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aurangabad.
The prosecution case revolved around allegations of kidnapping and gang rape of a minor girl. The trial court had convicted the appellants primarily on the basis of the testimony of the victim, holding it sufficient to establish the charges. However, the appellants challenged this finding before the High Court, arguing that the conviction was based on inconsistent, uncorroborated, and unreliable evidence.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhari and Justice Dr. Anshuman undertook a detailed reappraisal of the evidence on record. The case presented a complex interplay of legal principles—particularly the weight to be accorded to the testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases, the necessity of corroboration, and the impact of inconsistencies in evidence.
At the heart of the case was a critical question: whether a conviction for grave offences such as gang rape can be sustained when the prosecution’s case suffers from material contradictions, absence of medical evidence, and lack of independent corroboration. The Court’s decision would ultimately reaffirm the fundamental principle that criminal conviction must be based on evidence that inspires confidence and proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the Appellants:
The appellants mounted a strong challenge to the trial court’s judgment, contending that the conviction was based on a flawed appreciation of evidence. Their primary argument centered on the material contradictions between the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and her subsequent deposition before the trial court.
It was pointed out that in her statement under Section 164 CrPC—recorded shortly after her recovery—the victim had not made any allegation of rape. She had only stated that she had been kidnapped. However, during her deposition before the court, she alleged that she had been subjected to repeated gang rape by the appellants. According to the appellants, this inconsistency went to the root of the prosecution case and cast serious doubt on the credibility of the victim’s testimony.
The appellants further argued that the prosecution had failed to produce any independent corroborative evidence. The testimonies of other prosecution witnesses were described as hearsay, as none of them had witnessed the alleged incident. This lack of direct or circumstantial evidence, they contended, made it unsafe to rely solely on the victim’s testimony.
Another significant aspect of the appellants’ argument was the absence of medical evidence supporting the allegation of forcible sexual assault. They highlighted that the medical examination of the victim did not reveal any signs of injury or violence, which would ordinarily be expected in a case involving repeated gang rape over several days. The medical report, instead, indicated old rupture of the hymen and did not support the prosecution’s narrative of recent forcible intercourse.
The appellants also questioned the delay and manner in which the allegations of rape were introduced. They argued that the FIR lodged by the victim’s father initially mentioned only kidnapping, and the allegation of sexual assault emerged only after the victim’s recovery. This, according to them, suggested that the charges of rape were an afterthought.
Relying on these grounds, the appellants contended that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction was liable to be set aside.
Arguments of the Prosecution:
The prosecution, on the other hand, defended the conviction by emphasizing the well-established principle that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual assault carries significant weight and does not require corroboration as a matter of law. It was argued that a victim of such offences would not ordinarily make false allegations at the cost of her dignity and reputation.
The prosecution contended that the victim had clearly deposed before the court about the kidnapping and subsequent gang rape by the appellants. Her testimony, it was argued, was consistent with the overall narrative of the prosecution and should be sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Addressing the issue of contradictions, the prosecution submitted that minor discrepancies are natural and inevitable in the testimony of witnesses, particularly in cases involving traumatic experiences. It was argued that such discrepancies should not be treated as fatal to the prosecution case unless they affect the core of the allegations.
The prosecution also sought to explain the absence of medical evidence by arguing that lack of injuries does not necessarily negate the occurrence of sexual assault. It was submitted that each case must be evaluated on its own facts, and the absence of physical injuries cannot be the sole ground for disbelieving the victim’s testimony.
Furthermore, the prosecution urged the Court to adopt a sensitive approach while dealing with cases of sexual offences, keeping in mind the social stigma and psychological impact faced by victims. It was argued that an overly technical approach to evidence could result in injustice and discourage victims from coming forward.
Court’s Judgment:
The Patna High Court, after carefully evaluating the evidence and submissions, found merit in the arguments advanced by the appellants and proceeded to set aside the conviction. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that while the testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases is of paramount importance, it must still be reliable, consistent, and capable of inspiring confidence.
Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Court found that the victim’s testimony suffered from serious inconsistencies. The most significant contradiction identified by the Court was the omission of any allegation of rape in the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC. Given that this statement was recorded shortly after her recovery, the Court found it difficult to accept that she would have remained silent about such a grave offence if it had indeed occurred.
The Court observed that this omission was not a minor discrepancy but a material contradiction that went to the root of the prosecution case. The subsequent introduction of allegations of gang rape during her deposition raised doubts about the credibility of her testimony.
The Court also took note of the fact that the FIR initially mentioned only kidnapping and did not contain any allegation of sexual assault. This further reinforced the inference that the allegations of rape may have been introduced at a later stage.
Another critical factor considered by the Court was the absence of medical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case. The Court observed that in a case involving repeated gang rape over several days, it would be natural to expect some signs of physical injury. However, the medical examination did not reveal any such evidence. On the contrary, the findings suggested that the victim had prior sexual experience, which was inconsistent with the prosecution’s narrative.
The Court also found that the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses were purely hearsay and did not provide any independent corroboration of the alleged incident. In the absence of such corroboration, the Court held that it would be unsafe to rely solely on the victim’s inconsistent testimony.
Importantly, the Court emphasized the principle that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Where two views are possible on the evidence, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. In the present case, the inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence created a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the appellants.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a reliable and consistent narrative, and the evidence on record was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. It held that the victim’s testimony was “not wholly reliable; rather, mostly unreliable,” and could not form the sole basis for conviction in the absence of corroboration.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.