Section 376 IPC: Supreme Court Says Rape Conviction Cannot Follow Partial Acceptance Of Prosecutrix’s Testimony

The Supreme Court recently set aside the concurrent conviction of a man in a rape case, holding that the prosecution's version could not be partly rejected to acquit him of kidnapping and then partly accepted to convict him of rape.

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar, in its September 25, 2026 judgment, said that while an accused can be convicted of rape on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must inspire the confidence of the court.

Court also agreed with the sessionsjudge's observation that “a lady may travel with a man to a far-off place and even spend a night with him but may not consent to having sex with him”, but said the observation was made in a different context and could not be used as a basis for conviction.

Why did the Supreme Court set aside the rape conviction?

Court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not credible and that the sessions judge had wrongly relied on parts of the same testimony to convict the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], after disbelieving it in relation to the charge under Section 366 IPC (Section 87 BNS).

“There cannot be partial rejection of the evidence of the prosecutrix for the purpose of Section 366 IPC and partial acceptance of the very same statement for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 376 IPC,” Court said.

The appellant, Paramjit Singh Bedi, had challenged the September 12, 2013 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed his criminal appeal and affirmed the June 1, 2012 judgment of the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

The sessions court had convicted Bedi under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000, with a default stipulation.

What was the prosecution's case?

According to the prosecution, on June 19, 2006, Bedi took the girl in his car on the pretext of making her meet his daughter, who was the victim's friend. He allegedly took her to a flat in Ludhiana and had sexual intercourse with her against her will.

On June 25, 2006, he allegedly brought her back by train and on foot from the railway station to her home.

After the FIR was lodged, the charge sheet was filed and charges were framed. The sessions court, however, acquitted Bedi of the offence under Section 366 IPC but convicted him under Section 376 IPC.

The high court subsequently dismissed his appeal.

What did the Supreme Court find in the prosecutrix's testimony?

The Supreme Court noted that during her lengthy cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that while she was in a one-room accommodation at Malerkotla, she had raised a hue and cry but there was nobody to hear her shouts.

She also admitted that Bedi was residing in her neighbourhood as a tenant in the house of Major Singh, a relative of her family. Bedi was not paying rent, for which a case was pending.

Court further noted that no external mark of injury was found on her body during medical examination.

The Bench observed that after disbelieving the testimony of the prosecutrix insofar as the charge under Section 366 IPC was concerned, the Sessions Judge “surprisingly” held that the prosecution had nevertheless proved the charge under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the sessions judge say about consent?

The sessions judge held that the prosecutrix, who was a major, had gone with the accused-appellant willingly. However, while considering the charge under Section 376 IPC, the judge accepted her version that she had been raped by the appellant.

The sessions judge acknowledged that the findings could appear contradictory but held that such a contradiction was not improbable.

The judge also explained, on the basis of his own value judgment, that “some daring women also choose to travel to far off places in the company of men”. According to him, a woman could agree to accompany a man and even spend a night with him, while not consenting to have sex with him.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the manner in which this reasoning was used to justify the conviction.

“We are afraid the sessions judge has gone completely wrong while justifying the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC. The high court also fell in error in accepting such convoluted logic,” the Bench said.

Court also noted that the high court had relied on Section 114A of the Evidence Act, 1872 [Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)], to hold that since the prosecutrix had denied being a consenting party, a presumption had to be drawn that she did not consent to sexual intercourse.

Section 120 BSA mandates that in specific aggravated rape prosecutions under Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), once sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the woman testifies in court that she did not give consent, the court shall presume the absence of consent.

Prosecutrix's testimony was not credible

The Supreme Court described the prosecutrix's version as a “bundle of contradictions”. It particularly noted that she had not raised any hue and cry during the entire journey back home.

“This is unbelievable. Therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be credible and worthy of acceptance,” the Bench held.

Court said that her denial of consent had to be considered in the overall context of her testimony. If her evidence was taken as a whole, the court said, a view could certainly be taken that her claim that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her forcibly and without her consent did not merit acceptance.

“The version of the prosecutrix is not believable at all,” it held.

Sessions judge's observation on women and consent?

The Bench said that the example given by the sessions judge that a woman may travel with a man to a far-off place and even spend a night with him without consenting to sex “may be true”, but stressed that the context in the present case was different.

“While the example given by the sessions judge that a lady may travel with a man to a far-off place and even spend a night with him but may not consent to having sex with him (though the use of the word ‘daring’ prefixing ‘women’ is totally uncalled for) may be true, the context is different,” Court said.

Court pointed out that in the present case, the prosecutrix had remained away from home for five or six days, travelling around with the appellant voluntarily and staying with him.

“It is therefore difficult to accept that accused-appellant had forcible intercourse with her without her consent,” the Bench said.

Conviction cannot rest on value judgments

Court further held that once the Sessions Judge had disbelieved the prosecution version in relation to the charge under Section 366 IPC, the same version could not have been accepted to convict the appellant under Section 376 IPC.

“While the conduct of the appellant may be immoral and unethical, that by itself would not justify a conviction under Section 376 IPC without any clinching evidence,” the Bench said.

“Such a charge must be proved on the basis of hard evidence and not on the basis of the surmises and conjectures based on the value judgment of the presiding judge. Immorality of an act sans credible evidence cannot justify a conviction,” it added.

Holding that the conviction could not be sustained, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the sessions court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court and acquitted Bedi of the charge under Section 376 IPC.

Case Title: Paramjit Singh Bedi Vs State of Punjab 

Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar 

Date of Judgment: September 25, 2026