The testimony of a victim in rape cases must be credible and consistent; lack of corroboration and significant discrepancies can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The appellant stands convicted for commission of rape on the victim (P.W.1) under section 376(1) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and fine of Rs.20,000/-. The fine imposed was directed to be paid as compensation to the victim. In default to pay the fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The period of imprisonment already undergone during investigation and trial was to be set off.

2. The impugned judgment dated 27.02.2020 and the order on sentence dated 28.02.2020, are both under challenge.

3. Heard Ms Puja Lamichaney, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sudesh Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence of rape upon the victim beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) (statement) and her deposition in court. Substantial and material improvements had been made in the deposition of the victim. More importantly, although the victim had deposed in detail about an attempt to rape by the appellant in a jungle prior to the actual incident of rape, she had not stated so before the police or the learned Judicial Magistrate while her statement was being recorded. The learned counsel also pointed out that the allegation of being raped by the appellant brandishing a knife to threaten her of dire consequences in her statement was also an improvement from the FIR. It was submitted that although the allegation is of violent and forceful rape upon the victim, the medical as well as forensic evidence failed to corroborate the same. It was also argued that the evidence of the victim is not consistent with how a victim would behave after an incident of rape. The learned counsel relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court to explain to us how material contradictions must be dealt with. The judgments relied upon are Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 171, Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2006) 10 SCC 92, Abbas Ahmad Choudhary v. State of Assam (2010) 12 SCC 115, Tameezuddin alias Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 15 SCC 566, Suraj v. State of Maharashtra , Through Police Station (2021) SCC online 325 and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and Another (2003) 11 SCC 527.

5. In Narender Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that minor or insignificant inconsistencies, discrepancies or contradictions in the testimony of a prosecutrix is inconsequential but if her statement suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and deliberate improvements on material points, no reliance can be placed thereon and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe (supra), the Supreme Court held that in rape cases conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sustainable if it inspires confidence in the mind of the court. However, if the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. In Abbas Ahmad Choudhary (supra), in the light of contradictions, the Supreme Court held that some doubt was created with regard to one of the accused persons involvement and decided to give benefit of doubt to him. In Tameezuddin alias Tammu (supra), the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the appellant for rape doubting the evidence of the prosecutrix and finding it essential to seek for corroboration. It was held that evidence of prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very pr