Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a rape case, emphasizing the principle that while the testimony of a rape survivor can form the sole basis for conviction, it must be consistent and of sterling quality to meet the requisite standard of proof. The case was heard by Justice C.S. Sudha, who delivered the judgment on January 14, 2025, in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2014. The court dismissed the State’s appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused under Sections 452, 511 of 376, 376, and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that on April 13, 2008, the accused unlawfully entered the bathroom of the survivor (PW1), an 18-year-old woman belonging to the Paniya community, a Scheduled Tribe. It was alleged that he attempted to sexually assault her and later lured her to a nearby quarry with promises of sweets and money, where he raped her twice. The survivor narrated the incidents to her stepmother (PW5), who found her crying near the bathroom shortly after the alleged incidents. A complaint was lodged the same day, and a medical examination was conducted.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found that the survivor’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, particularly regarding the sequence and locations of the alleged incidents. Key prosecution witnesses, including PW2 and PW4, who were claimed to have interrupted the incidents, turned hostile. The medical evidence, which revealed a torn hymen but no signs of recent force or violence, was deemed inconclusive. Consequently, the trial court acquitted the accused, granting him the benefit of the doubt.

High Court Observations

The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and concluded that the survivor’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. The court remarked: “It is true that the testimony of the prosecutrix alone would be sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offence of rape, provided her testimony is creditworthy and is of sterling quality. Unfortunately in this case, the testimony of PW1 is full of inconsistencies. In such circumstances, it would be unsafe to convict the accused relying solely on the testimony of PW1.” The judgment also highlighted discrepancies in the survivor’s statements. While the charge sheet alleged only an attempt to commit rape, the survivor claimed she was raped three times on the same day — once in the bathroom and twice in the quarry. The court noted that these contradictions weakened the prosecution’s case.

Key Evidence and Testimonies

1. Testimony of PW1: The survivor’s account shifted during her examination and cross-examination. She initially alleged an attempt to rape her in the bathroom but later claimed that she was raped thrice on the same day.

2. Hostile Witnesses: PW2 and PW4, who were alleged to have intervened during the incident, did not support the prosecution’s version in court.

3. Medical Examination: The medical report (Ext.P10) stated that the survivor’s hymen was torn, and her vagina admitted two fingers. However, the Assistant Surgeon (PW16) clarified during cross-examination that these findings did not conclusively indicate recent sexual assault and could have been due to other reasons.

4. Corroborating Witnesses: PW5 (the survivor’s stepmother) and PW6 (the survivor’s sister) provided partial corroboration but also made contradictory statements regarding the events and the timeline.

Court’s Conclusion

After examining the evidence and the arguments, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. It reiterated that the inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony, coupled with the lack of corroborative evidence and inconclusive medical findings, made it unsafe to convict the accused. The court observed that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. The judgment concluded: “In such circumstances, I find that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the findings of the trial court acquitting the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences alleged against him. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.”

Cause Title: State of Kerala v Sreekanth

Case No: CRL.A NO. 125 OF 2014

Date: January-14-2025

Bench: Justice C.S. Sudha

[Read/Download order]