Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that while the testimony of a rape survivor can form the sole basis for conviction, it must be consistent and of sterling quality.

The court, presided over by Justice C.S. Sudha, affirmed the acquittal of the accused, under Sections 452, 511 of 376, 376, 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. It observed that if the testimony is full of inconsistencies it would be unsafe to rely solely on it to convict the accused.

The prosecution case was 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, and attempted to sexually assault her. Later that day, it was alleged he lured PW1 to a nearby quarry with promises of sweets and money and raped her twice, threatening dire consequences if she reported the incidents. The case came to light when the survivor narrated the incidents to her stepmother (PW5), who claimed she found PW1 crying near the bathroom shortly after the alleged incident. The complaint was lodged the same day, and the medical examination revealed a torn hymen but showed no recent signs of force.

Witnesses, including PW1’s stepmother (PW5) and sister (PW6), gave partial corroboration but also provided conflicting accounts. Key witnesses, PW2 and PW4, who were claimed to have interrupted the incident, turned hostile. The survivor’s testimony shifted between alleging attempted and multiple completed rapes on the same day, creating inconsistencies. The defence pointed out these contradictions and the lack of credible evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused, concluding that the evidence failed to meet the required standard of proof, prompting the State’s appeal before the High Court.

The High Court found that the statements of the survivor contained numerous contradictions, including discrepancies about the locations and sequence of the alleged incidents. Moreover, key witnesses also did not support the prosecution, and the medical evidence was inconclusive.

The court noted: “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 PW1is full of inconsistencies. In such circumstances, it would be unsafe to convict the accused relying solely on the testimony of PW1.”

Upholding the trial court’s decision, the court dismissed the appeal finding it sans merit and emphasising the accused’s right to the benefit of doubt in the absence of reliable evidence.

 

Cause Title: State of Kerala v Sreekanth [CRL.A NO. 125 OF 2014]