Paramjit Singh Bedi vs State of Punjab

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1861 - Sections 366, 361 and 362 - Section 376 and 375 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114A - Rape and Kidnapping - Consent and Credibility of Prosecutrix - When the trial court disbelieves the testimony of the prosecutrix regarding the charge of kidnapping or abduction due to her voluntary conduct and failure to raise an alarm in public spaces, the same testimony cannot be partially accepted to prove a charge of rape under Section 376 IPC - Evidence of the prosecutrix must be of unimpeachable character to sustain a conviction, and there cannot be partial rejection and partial acceptance of the same statement for different charges that are intricately connected in the factual matrix. (Paras 28, 29)

(B) Appreciation of Evidence - Sole testimony of prosecutrix - While an accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such statement must inspire the confidence of the court - Where testimony is riddled with contradictions and conduct suggests voluntary accompaniment, it does not merit acceptance. (Paras 24, 28)

(C) Medical Evidence - Presence of spermatozoa - Mere presence of spermatozoa in a vaginal swab does not prove rape if the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties suggest consent. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged that she was taken by the accused to various locations and raped against her will. The trial court acquitted the accused of kidnapping and abduction, concluding that the prosecutrix was a major who had accompanied the accused voluntarily, as she failed to raise any alarm in crowded and brightly lit areas. However, the trial court convicted the accused of rape under Section 376 IPC, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The appellant challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecutrix's testimony to be unreliable and full of contradictions, particularly regarding the mode of transport used during the return journey. The court observed that the trial court's reasoning—that a woman could voluntarily travel with a man but not consent to sex—was convoluted and based on a value judgment rather than hard evidence. Since the prosecutrix's conduct indicated voluntary companionship, her claim of forced intercourse was not believable.

Issues: Whether a conviction under Section 376 IPC can be sustained by partially accepting the testimony of a prosecutrix when the same testimony was rejected for the purposes of proving kidnapping and abduction under Section 366 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that evidence cannot be partially accepted and partially rejected for different charges arising from the same set of facts. If the prosecutrix's testimony is found non-credible for the charge of kidnapping/abduction because her conduct showed consent to accompany the accused, that same testimony cannot be deemed unimpeachable for the purpose of proving rape. Convictions must be based on clinching evidence and not on surmises, conjectures, or moral judgments of the court.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal against conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Appellant argued false implication due to civil dispute; State argued conviction justified by evidence and presumption of law. (Para 9 , 10 )

3. Prosecutrix's testimony was a bundle of contradictions; she willingly accompanied the appellant without raising alarm. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 )

4. There cannot be part acceptance and part rejection of prosecutrix's statement; it must inspire confidence in its entirety. (Para 28 )

5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted. (Para 30 , 31 )

6. Can a court partially accept and partially reject the testimony of a prosecutrix for different charges in the same case?

No. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of unimpeachable character, it must be accepted in its entirety. There cannot be part acceptance and part rejection. (Para 28 )

7. What is the standard for convicting an accused for rape based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix?

The sole testimony of the prosecutrix can form the basis of conviction, but it must inspire the confidence of the court. (Para 28 )

8. Can an appellant be convicted under Section 376 IPC when the trial court disbelieved the prosecution version for an interconnected charge under Section 366 IPC?

No. The very same prosecution version that was disbelieved for one charge cannot be accepted to convict the accused under an interconnected charge. (Para 29 )

JUDGMENT

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant and affirming the judgment and order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 (‘IPC’ for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 with a default stipulation.

2. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.

3. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix PW-1 is the daughter of Ranjit Singh, PW-2. At the relevant point of time, she was studying in class VIII in the Government High School, Manjit Nagar, Ludhiana.

3.1. On 19.06.2009 at around 07:30 PM, PW-1 left her house to buy some kirana articles from the neighbourhood shop. On her way, she was accosted by the appellant who told her that he wanted her to meet his daughter Nancy. As Nancy was a friend of PW-1, she agreed to the proposal. Appellant made her sit in his Maruti car where two boys were already sitting.

3.2. Appellant took PW-1 in the vehicle to the LIG Flats, Ludhiana. From there, the said two boys came back in the car.

3.3. According to PW-1, the appellant kept her in the flat for two days where he had sexual intercourse with her against her will. On 22.06.2009, appellant took PW-1 to Malerkotla on his scooter where he kept her confined in a room in an abandoned factory. According to PW-1, there also appellant had sexual intercourse with her against her will. When she objected, appellant threatened to kill her.

3.4. On 25.06.2009, the appellant came back to Ludhiana with PW-1 on train. From the railway station, appellant took PW-1 through Railway Colony No. 5 on foot. There they were intercepted by PW-2 (father of PW-1) and police officials. Though the appellant tried to flee, the police officials overpowered and apprehended him.

3.5. Thereafter, FIR No. 142/2009 was registered before Ludhiana Division No. 5 police station under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC.

4. On completion of investigation, police filed chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.

5. In the trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses whereafter statement of the appellant as the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

6. At the end of the trial, learned Sessions Judge Ludhiana came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under Section 366 IPC. Accordingly, appellant was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 366 IPC. In so far the charge under Section 376 IPC is concerned, learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused (appellant herein) had sexual intercourse with PW-1 against her will. Hence the accused-appellant was held guilty of committing an offence under Section 376 IPC.

6.1. Vide the judgment and order dated 01.06.2012, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 with a default stipulation.

7. As noted supra, appellant assailed his conviction and sentence before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2009-SB of 2012. Vide the judgment and order dated 12.09.2013, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. This Court issued notice on the special leave petition as well as on the prayer for bail on 28.02.2014. By the subsequent order dated 30.01.2015, leave was granted and taking note of the fact that appellant had already undergone incarceration for almost 6 years out of the total period of 10 years, he was ordered to be released on bail.

9. Mr. Rajiv Kataria, learned counsel for the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 1184

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UJJAL BHUYAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Paramjit Singh Bedi – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2015
Decided On : 25-09-2026

A court cannot sustain a rape conviction by partially accepting a prosecutrix's testimony if the same evidence was rejected for related charges of kidnapping or abduction; the testimony must be unimpeachable in its entirety to justify a conviction.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Can a court partially accept and partially reject the testimony of a prosecutrix for different charges in the same case?

7. What is the standard for convicting an accused for rape based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix?

8. Can an appellant be convicted under Section 376 IPC when the trial court disbelieved the prosecution version for an interconnected charge under Section 366 IPC?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(SC) 1184

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAUJJAL BHUYAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.Paramjit Singh Bedi – AppellantVERSUSState of Punjab – RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 203 of 2015Decided On : 25-09-2026

A court cannot sustain a rape conviction by partially accepting a prosecutrix's testimony if the same evidence was rejected for related charges of kidnapping or abduction; the testimony must be unimpeachable in its entirety to justify a conviction.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Can a court partially accept and partially reject the testimony of a prosecutrix for different charges in the same case?

7. What is the standard for convicting an accused for rape based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix?

8. Can an appellant be convicted under Section 376 IPC when the trial court disbelieved the prosecution version for an interconnected charge under Section 366 IPC?

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UJJAL BHUYAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Paramjit Singh Bedi – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2015
Decided On : 25-09-2026