A conviction for a criminal offense based on the sole testimony of a victim must meet the standard of 'sterling quality.' If medical evidence is absent and material witnesses or forensic reports are withheld, the court must draw an adverse inference, and defense cross-examination suggestions cannot be deemed confessions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 376, 457 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Sexual assault - Conviction based on sole testimony of victim - Requirement of testimony being of sterling quality and inspiring confidence - Mandatory in cases where facts and circumstances raise reasonable doubt. (Para 12)

(B) Evidence - Adverse inference - Non-examination of material witnesses and non-production of critical forensic reports - Failure by prosecution to produce evidence that would assist in uncovering the genesis of the incident warrants drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. (Paras 16-19)

(C) Criminal Trial - Cross-examination - Suggestions provided by defense counsel - Cannot be treated as a confession of the accused - Conviction cannot be solely based on such arguments. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a trial court judgment convicting him for rape while acquitting him of charges related to house trespass and causing hurt. The prosecution case rested on the sole testimony of the complainant who alleged that the incident occurred at night in the presence of her sleeping children. The medical report indicated no injuries, and forensic reports concerning vaginal swabs were not produced. The minor child who allegedly witnessed the incident was not examined. The trial court derived a confession from suggestions put forth by the defense counsel during cross-examination.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence. The improbability of a forcible incident within a small room occupied by multiple children, coupled with the absence of physical injury markers, cast significant doubt on the prosecution. The failure to offer forensic findings or testimony from available witnesses necessitated an adverse inference. Furthermore, the reliance by the trial court on a defense suggestion as a confession was found to be legally perverse.

Issues: Whether a conviction for rape can be sustained on the sole testimony of the complainant when there is an absence of corroborative medical evidence and a failure to produce material witnesses or forensic reports.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction based on sole testimony requires evidence of sterling quality. In the absence of corroborative forensic evidence and the withholding of material witnesses, the prosecution case fails. Adverse inference must be drawn where evidence is withheld. Suggestions made by the defense in cross-examination do not constitute an admission of guilt by the accused.

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

Table of Content
1. factual background and evidence presented during the initial trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. summarizing the defense contentions and the trial court's erroneous reliance on defense suggestions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. requirement of corroboration for solitary testimony and adverse inference for withholding evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. a suggestion made by defense counsel during cross-examination does not constitute a confession of guilt. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. final acquittal of the appellant and procedural mandate under section 437-a cr.p.c. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.D. Bhatt, the learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No.80 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.252 of 2005 under Sections 457, 323, 376 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby although the trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 457 and 323 IPC, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay Rs.2,000/- as fine.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the victim herself had lodged an FIR at 12:30 p.m. on 01.12.2005 stating that her husband works as a labourer at Ludhiana and had not visited the home for the past nine months. The complainant lives with her children. At about 01:00 a.m. on the previous night while she was sleeping in her room along with her children, the appellant entered her house by scaling the boundary wall and, thereafter, he entered her room after breaking the window. The electric light was switched on. The appellant shut her mouth, disrobed her and bit on her breast. The complainant's daughter woke up. The appellant threatened her daughter and raped the complainant. The complainant stated that she had suffered injuries on her breast and thighs due to biting and beating. She further stated that she did not come in the morning to lodge the FIR because of fear and she had come in the afternoon with the help of some villagers. The complainant stated that her age was 35 years.

4. The husband of village Pradhan was examined as PW-2. He stated that the complainant had told him that the appellant had raped her. PW-3- Aadya Prasad stated that the complainant was living in the village along with her children and her husband was working at Ludhiana. PW-3 stated that on the date of the incident, he was not in the village. PW-3 was declared hostile. During cross-examination PW-3 stated that the complainant had four children. The eldest was aged about 12-13 years at the time of the incident. After the incident, the complainant went to Ludhiana along with her children and did not return to the village.

5. The victim/complainant was examined as PW-4. She stated that the appellant had forcibly disrobed and raped her and he had threatened her.

6. The Doctor, who had conducted the medico-legal examination of the victim/complainant was examined as PW-5. She stated that no mark of injury was found on the private parts of the complainant's body. She had prepared two slides of vaginal swab and had sent the same for being examined in the District Hospital, Faizabad. She stated that the complainant is mother of five children and she could not say about commission of rape with certainty.

7. The Investigating Officer was not examined because of his ailment and a constable- Pairokar was examined as PW-6 who proved the site plan and the other documents.

8. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated as a part of a conspiracy.

9. It was contended on behalf