'Prosecutrix's Testimony Doesn't Inspire Confidence' : Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal In Rape Case

“Although it is absolutely true that in the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as her evidence is in the nature of an injured witness which is given a very high value by the Courts. But nevertheless when a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness the Courts are bound to be very careful in examining such a witness and thus the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court.,” observed the Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

To provide a brief background, the prosecution had alleged that when the victim was coming from the school the accused caught hold of her hand and put a knife on her back. Thereafter, the accused took her to a grocery shop nearby and established physical relations with her. The accused was booked for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

However, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. The same was affirmed by the High Court. Thus, the present appeal.

The Apex Court pointed out that the victim's evidence was mainly produced before the Trial Court. It then pointed out the medical examination, which showed no injuries on the body of the victim. Thereafter, the Court also highlighted the contradictions in her statement. For instance, she said that she had hit the accused but none of the injuries were noticed in the accused's body once he surrendered.

“Definitely the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination has stuck to the fact that she was raped by the accused but the fact remains that she has contradicted her statement at more than one place. Moreover she has said in her statement under Section 164 CrPC she had hit the accused on her head by Danda whereas in her examination-in-chief she stated that she hit the accused on his foot. When the accused had surrendered on 10.10.2014 none of these injuries were noticed on the body of the accused.”

The Court also did not find it believable that the victim went with the accused without raising any alarm.

“It is not believable that when the prosecutrix was caught by the accused who is known to the prosecutrix, she went with him quite a distance in the Bazaar and then to a shop, she never raised any alarm. The only reason she gave is that there was a knife with accused and he had threatened her that if she raises an alarm her brother and father would be killed.”

Based on these circumstances, the Court concluded that her statement did not inspire confidence. It thus refused to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the present appeal.

Appearences :

For Appellant(s) Mrs. Sonia Mahtur, Sr. Adv.

                        Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

                         Mrs. Noor Rampal, Adv.

                          Mrs. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv.

                          Mr. Alankar Gupta, Adv.

                            Mr. B K Satija, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivank Pratap Singh (Amicus Curiae.)

Case Name: STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) v. VIPIN @ LALLA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Click here to read the judgment