Inconsistencies in Testimonies and Lack of Corroboration Lead to Acquittal
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Manoj and others in a high-profile sexual assault case, highlighting the importance of consistency and corroboration in the prosecution's evidence. The case, which drew considerable attention due to its grave allegations, was decided on February 25, 2026, by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, who emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case revolved around allegations that the accused had wrongfully confined and sexually assaulted the prosecutrix for nearly a year. The prosecution's primary reliance was on the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW3), which, according to the court, suffered from inconsistencies and material improvements over time. Initially, the prosecutrix claimed she was wrongfully confined and sexually exploited for about seven days before her rescue, a statement that later changed to nearly a year of confinement and abuse.
Justice Sudha noted that for a conviction under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the testimony of the prosecutrix could suffice if it was of sterling quality. However, the testimony in this case was riddled with contradictions and lacked the necessary corroboration from other evidence or witnesses.
The court also observed that the prosecutrix had several opportunities to escape or raise an alarm, yet she did not. This, coupled with the drastic change in her version of events, cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Moreover, the medical evidence and testimonies of independent witnesses did not align with the allegations of prolonged confinement and repeated sexual assaults.
The High Court's judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' and the necessity for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal of Manoj and others serves as a reminder of the judicial system's reliance on credible, consistent, and corroborated evidence to convict individuals of serious crimes.
Bottom Line:
Acquittal of accused due to inconsistencies and material improvements in the testimony of prosecutrix, lack of corroboration, and failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 342, 323, 34, 376, 376(2)(g); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 235(1), 374(2), 207, 209, 313(1)(b), 232
