Patna High Court: The order of conviction of the appellants was set aside by the Division Bench, comprising Bibek Chaudhuri* & Dr Anshuman, JJ., in this criminal appeal, as the evidence on record was not found to be sufficient for conviction of the appellants. Victim remained silent over alleged commission of rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Being the sole eye-witness and her testimony not being supported by medical evidence, it was found to be mostly unreliable as it did not inspire confidence.
Also Read: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/28/daughter-alleging-rape-by-her-father/
Background
The present appeal is against conviction under Sections 366 and 376-D, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), passed by learned Special Judge. The challenge was on the grounds of misappreciation of evidence as there were material contradictions between victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition in Court, absence of independent corroboration and lack of medical evidence of gang rape.
As per the prosecution, the victim was kidnapped from her house by the appellants at about midnight and taken to a dark room where she was raped by appellants for three days. After threatening her with murder, the victim was dropped at a nearby “haat”. She was rescued from there, by the police.
The Court observed that her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC where she mentioned only kidnapping but no rape by the appellants but later during trial, she deposed that she was raped by the appellants after being kidnapped. Statements of other witnesses (family members) were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The medical examination of the victim was also conducted. The trial court convicted the appellants on the appreciation of evidence on record. Hence the present appeal.
Observations and Decision
It is the finding of the Court that apart from the victim’s, the evidence of all other witnesses is absolutely hearsay in nature as none of them is the eye-witness of the incident. Referring to multiple judgments by the Supreme Court, the Court held that in case of a sexual assault, the evidence of the victim is of utmost importance and cannot be equated with the evidence of accomplice.
It was further observed by the Court, in the light of multiple Supreme Court judgments, that to hold an accused guilty for commission of offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality.
On the point of appreciating the testimony of a single witness, Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 where the Court laid down “three categories” for appreciating the testimony of a single witness — 1) wholly reliable, 2) wholly unreliable, and 3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. There was no explanation as to why the victim remained silent regarding the alleged commission of rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Moreover, the medical report did not suggest commission of rape rather indicated that the victim had prior sexual experience.
Victim’s evidence in Court was found to be inconsistent with her previous statement under Section 164 CrPC which makes it fall into the third category. In case of the third category, Court stated that caution must be exercised and conviction cannot be solely on the basis of that testimony. Thus, on the grounds of material inconsistency in statements of the victim and lack of medical evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that the story of rape was subsequently manufactured by the victim and when there are two views which the Court can arrive at upon assessment of evidence, the view that supports the innocence of the accused shall be accepted.
Therefore, the Court held that the evidence on record is not sufficient to support the order of conviction and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
[Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 1785, decided on 18-3-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellants: Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Prabhash Ranjan Thakur
For Respondents: Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
