Evidence Rejected for Abduction Cannot Be Accepted for Rape: Supreme Court Acquits After 17 Years

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has set aside a conviction under Section 376 IPC that rested on the prosecutrix's testimony, after finding that the same testimony had been disbelieved by the trial court for the companion charge under Section 366 IPC. The Court held that there cannot be part acceptance and part rejection of the prosecutrix's statement in that manner, found her account inconsistent, and acquitted the appellant.

The prosecution alleged that in June 2009 the appellant took the prosecutrix from a street in Ludhiana, kept her at a flat for two days, and then took her to Malerkotla, where she said she was sexually assaulted. FIR No. 142/2009 was registered under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC, and the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 366 and 376.

The Sessions Court, Ludhiana acquitted the appellant under Section 366 but convicted him under Section 376 and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, which the High Court upheld in 2013. The Supreme Court granted leave and bail in January 2015, by which time he had served about six years. The age finding of the Sessions Court, which treated the prosecutrix as about 19 on the basis of an ossification test, was not challenged.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a court reject a prosecutrix's version on the abduction charge yet rely on the same version to convict for rape?

Credibility, Consistency and the Section 114A Presumption

Applying the pre-2013 versions of Sections 375 and 376 because the incident occurred in 2009, the Court examined the record. With the age finding of about 19 standing, the kidnapping basis fell away. The Court found the prosecutrix's account inconsistent: she did not raise any alarm during a scooter journey through crowded, lit streets, and her account of the return journey shifted between a car and a train.

The Court held that the Sessions Court could not reject her evidence on Section 366 and accept it on Section 376, stating that “there cannot be part acceptance and part rejection of the statement of the prosecutrix”. The medical evidence showed no injuries and did not by itself establish the offence in the circumstances. Since the core account was not credible, the High Court's reliance on the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act could not be sustained. The Court added that “immorality of an act sans credible evidence cannot justify a conviction”.

What the Court Actually Held

• The conviction under Section 376 IPC and its affirmance by the High Court were set aside.
• The appellant was acquitted of the Section 376 charge.
• The trial court's Section 366 acquittal and age finding had attained finality.
• The Section 114A presumption could not apply where the prosecution's core account was not credible.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reiterates consistency in appreciating the same witness's evidence across charges.
• It shows the limits of the Section 114A presumption when the foundational facts are doubtful.
• It is a reminder of the delay in criminal appeals, decided 17 years after the incident.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Point out where a trial court disbelieved the same witness on a connected charge.
• Test whether the foundational facts for any statutory presumption are proved.

For Prosecutors

• Challenge adverse age or acquittal findings that undermine the main charge.
• Ensure the witness's account is coherent across all charges.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The Court found the prosecutrix's account inconsistent and held it could not be accepted for rape after being rejected for abduction.

The pre-2013 Sections 375 and 376 IPC, because the incident occurred in 2009.

The unchallenged finding that she was about 19 removed the kidnapping basis and meant consent had to be assessed on the evidence.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →