Patna High Court

ANIL RAM @ ANIL KUMAR RAMversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 5 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The conviction under Section 376D was set aside and the appellants were acquitted due to lack of reliable corroboration.

Summary

The appellants, Anil Ram and Bhuwar Ram, were convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Buxar for rape under Section 376D of the IPC and sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment. They appealed, contending that the victim's testimony was inconsistent, the medical report did not corroborate a forceful sexual assault, there was an unexplained two‑day delay in lodging the FIR, and the investigation suffered material lapses. The High Court examined the victim's statements, the husband’s testimony, medical opinions, and the investigating officer’s report, finding significant contradictions, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural deficiencies. Relying on precedents regarding the requirement of a "sterling witness" and the need for corroboration, the Court held that the prosecution's case did not inspire confidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release.

Issues considered

The credibility and reliability of the victim's testimony as a sole basis for conviction
Whether the medical evidence corroborates the alleged rape
Impact of the two‑day delay in filing the FIR on the prosecution's case
Whether investigation lapses render the evidence insufficient
Applicability of the "sterling witness" doctrine in rape cases under Section 376D

Legislation cited

Subjects

rape
Section 376D
victim testimony
medical evidence
FIR delay
investigation lapses
sterling witness
acquittal
criminal appeal

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.674 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar
======================================================
Anil Ram @ Anil Kumar Ram, Son of Ishwar Dayal Ram, resident of village
- Babhani, P.S - Buxar Mufassil, Distt. - Buxar. ... ... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. ‘X’ (informant), Wife of Upendra Kumar Ram, R/o Village- Bhavari, P.O.-
Pashra, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar. ... ... Respondents.
======================================================
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 684 of 2023

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar
======================================================
Bhuwar Ram, Son of Nakharu Ram, resident of village - Babhani, P.S. -
Buxar (M), Distt. - Buxar. ... ... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. ‘X’ (informant), Wife of Upendra Kumar Ram, R/o Village- Bhavari,
P.O.- Pashra, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar. ... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 674 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Ritwaj Raman, Advocate
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 684 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
Mr. Jayant Kr. Ray, Advocate
Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Binod Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
And
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)

Date : 05-05-2026

As both these appeals arise out of the same Sessions
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
2/22

Trial No.253 of 2021 [arising out of Buxar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.26

of 2021], hence they have been finally heard together and are being

disposed by a common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the

appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.674 of 2023, Mr. Jagjit Roshan,

learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.684 of 2023

and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State in both these appeals.

3. Despite valid service of notice on Respondent No. 2,

no one has entered appearance on her behalf to oppose the appeals.

4. The appellants in these cases are seeking setting aside

of the judgment of conviction dated 11.05.2023 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated

17.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’), passed by

the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special

Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Buxar (hereinafter referred to as the

‘learned Trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No.253/2021, arising out of

Buxar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.26 of 2021, under Section 376D of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short as ‘IPC’).

5. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has been

pleased to convict the appellants for the offence under Section 376D

of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
3/22

offence under Section 376-D of the IPC and in default of payment of

fine, the appellants have further been directed to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months.

Prosecution story

6. The prosecution case, based on the written report

(Ext-P2/PW-3) of the informant/victim dated 20.03.2021, unfolds

with the narration of fact that the informant, a 22 years old woman,

having a nine months old son, was alone in the house as her husband,

who is a handicapped person, had gone for working as labour to the

brick-kiln, Kulharia. It is alleged that on 18.03.2021 at about 9:00

p.m., when the informant went out of her house to attend the call of

nature and when she reached near the field of one Baduri Tiwari, the

two accused persons, namely, Bhuwar Ram (appellant no.2) armed

with country made pistol and Anil Ram (appellant no.1) armed with

a knife, who were already waiting there, caught hold of her and on

the point of the said arms, they tied a black cloth on her mouth and

pushed her on the ground and removed her clothes. Both the

appellants thereafter committed rape upon her one after the other for

ten minutes and also threatened her that in case she disclosed the

incident to anyone or lodged a case, her handicapped husband and

her son would be killed. The informant then came back to her house

weeping and narrated the entire incident to her husband and on

19.03.2021 her husband returned home from the brick-kiln,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
4/22

whereafter the present case was lodged.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid written application,

the formal First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as

‘F.I.R.’) bearing Buxar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 26 of 2021, was

registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under

section 376-D of the IPC.

8. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted

against the appellants under section 376D of IPC on 20.09.2021,

whereafter cognizance was taken under the aforementioned

provision on 22.10.2021 and the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions.

9. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court on 03.12.2021,

framed the charges against the appellants under section 376-D of the

IPC, which was explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

10. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, has

examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited some documents

on its behalf. List of prosecution witnesses and exhibits are being

mentioned hereunder in tabular form: -

List of Prosecution Witnesses:

Rank Name of the witnesses Type of the witnesses
PW-1 Munna Ram Hostile
PW-2 Upendra Kumar Ram Victim’s husband
PW-3 Victim Informant
PW-4 Dr. Geeta Kumari Medical witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
5/22

PW-5 Dr. Arun Kumar Singh Medical witness
PW-6 Dr. Yogendra Kumar Medical witness
PW-7 Karuna Devi Investigating officer

List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution:
Ext Document Witness
No.
Ext-1 Signature of witness Upendra Kumar Ram on written PW-2
application.
Ext-2 The written application in the handwriting of Ajeet PW-3
Kumar.
Ext-2a Signature of the informant on the written application. PW-3

Ext-2b Signature of Ajeet Kumar on the written application. PW-3

Ext-3 Signature of informant on the medical examination PW-3
report.
Ext-4 Signature of informant on the statement recorded u/s PW-3
164 of Cr.P.C.
Ext-5 Writing and signature of Dr. Geeta Kumari on Medical PW-4
Report.
Ext-5a Signature of Dr. Yogendra Kumar on medical report. PW-4

Ext-5b Signature of Dr. Amlesh Kumar on medical report. PW-4

Ext-5c X-ray report with signature of Dr. Arun Kumar Singh. PW-5

Ext-5d Signature of Dr. Yogendra Kumar on the X-ray report. PW-5

Ext-6 X-ray report prepared by Dr. Yogendra Kumar. PW-6

Ext-7 Formal FIR PW-7

Ext-8 Endorsement on the FIR PW-7

Ext-9 Statement of witness Munna Ram in Para – 14 of the PW-7
case diary.

11. The accused/appellants were examined under

section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) on 07.05.2022, wherein the appellants denied all the

allegations and took a plea of their innocence with a specific defence

taken by appellant, Anil Ram that his brother, Ajay Ram, had given
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
6/22

some money to Jitendra Ram, the brother-in-law of the informant,

for going abroad and on demanding the said money back, he was

falsely implicated in the present case.

12. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary

evidence.

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

13. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the

entire evidence on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution

had succeeded in proving the guilt of accused persons/appellants

beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that the accused persons

were specifically named in the F.I.R and were admittedly co-

villagers of the victim (PW-3). The testimony of the victim was

found to be cogent, consistent and trustworthy as she has

categorically stated that the appellants committed rape upon her, for

ten minutes, on the point of country-made pistol and knife and her

narration remained by and large consistent in her statement recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.P-4/PW 3). Her testimony in Court

also remained unshaken during cross-examination, thereby inspiring

confidence on the prosecution case.

14. It has further been taken into account that the

medical evidence adduced by PW-4 discloses injuries on the victim

which is indicative of resistance and struggle thereby lending support

to the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has also considered
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
7/22

that the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. have not given any satisfactory explanation to rebut the

presumption under Section 114 A of the Indian Evidence Act.

15. Thus, upon considering all the facts and circumstances of

the case and also considering the ingredients of Section 376 D of the

IPC, the learned Trial Court has concluded that the evidence of

victim read in its totality was found to be creditworthy and sufficient

to record conviction, as the same stood supported by the medical

evidence and some minor contradictions and insignificant

discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the case of the

prosecution. Thus, holding that the charges levelled against the

accused/appellants stand proved beyond reasonable doubt, the

appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 376D

of the IPC.

Submission on behalf of the appellants

16. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel for the

appellants has submitted at the outset that the impugned judgment of

conviction against the appellants has been passed without properly

appreciating the evidence available on the record. It has been

contended that the occurrence took place on 18.03.2021 and the FIR

was lodged on 20.03.2021, hence, there is an inordinate delay of two

days in lodging of the said FIR and that too, without any

explanation.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
8/22

17. It has further been submitted that the statement of

the victim, which is the sole basis of conviction of the appellants, is

not worth believing as the victim in this case is not a ‘sterling

witness’, inasmuch as, her testimony suffers from material

contradictions, with regard to the incident of rape, including facts

relating to seizure of clothes and the condition of crops at the place

of occurrence. It is pointed out that the victim is an adult married

woman and also the medical examination report does not support the

allegation of forcible sexual assault, as the doctor (PW-4) has clearly

opined that no signs of forceful sexual act was found nor any injury

was found over internal part of the victim. In such circumstances,

where the medical evidence fails to support the ocular version, the

case of prosecution becomes doubtful. It is also a fact that the

accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. have stated that there was a monetary dispute between the

parties which led to their false implication.

18. The learned counsel has further contended that the

investigation suffers from serious lapses which go to the root of the

cause as no seizure of clothes was made, no articles were recovered

from the place of occurrence and no investigation with regard to the

condition of the crops at the place of occurrence was done. The

victim was also sent for medical examination after two days of the

incident. In addition to this, the I.O. has not recorded the statement
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
9/22

of the owner of land of the place of occurrence. Also, the medical

examination of the accused was not conducted and no statements of

their defence were recorded. These material omissions indicate a

defective and perfunctory investigation, thereby diminishing the

authenticity of the prosecution.

19. Thus, on the basis of aforementioned grounds, it has

been submitted that on account of lack of medical corroboration,

defective investigation and unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R,

the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt rendering the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence liable to be set aside.

Submission on behalf of State

20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

has opposed the appeals by submitting that the testimony of the

victim is consistent throughout the trial. There are no material

contradictions or discrepancies affecting the core of the prosecution

case. The victim has remained firm in her version, during her

deposition and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and

there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony.

21. It has further been submitted that the said offence is

of very serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt and the minor contradictions arising in the case of

natural witnesses, do not affect the substance of deposition.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
10/22

Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants

by carefully considering the evidence available on the record.

Analysis and consideration:

22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

considering the evidence led at the trial as well as upon perusal of

the record, this court finds that out of seven witnesses examined on

behalf of the prosecution, PWs 4 (Dr. Geeta Kumari), 5 (Dr. Arun

Kumar Singh) and 6 (Dr. Yogendra Kumar) are the medical officers

who have examined the victim and have also determined her age on

the basis of radiological findings. Pw-3 (‘X’) is the victim herself

while PW-2 (Upendra Kumar Ram) is her husband. While PW-1

(Munna Ram) has been declared hostile. PW-8 is the investigating

officer (hereinafter referred as I.O.) of the case.

23. The evidence which primarily requires

consideration is that of the victim PW-3 and her husband PW-2 vis-

à-vis the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution, as also the

objective findings of the I.O. From a perusal of the evidence of PW-

2 (Upendra Kumar Ram), the husband of the victim, it is clear that

his evidence is based upon the information given to him by the

victim (PW-3). In his examination-in-chief, he has admitted that the

occurrence is of 18.03.2021 at around 9:30 p.m. and he received a

phone call from his wife around 10:00 p.m., stating the fact that the

appellants Bhuwar and Anil had committed rape upon her on point of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
11/22

country made pistol and knife, in the field of Baduri Tiwari, while

she had gone for attending the call of nature. They also threatened to

kill her husband and son, if she disclosed about the incident to

anyone. He has also stated that he went to his house next morning

and took his wife to Buxar Mufassil P.S. from where they were

directed to Mahila P.S. Buxar. A written application with regard to

the incident on behalf of his wife (victim) was given at Mahila P.S.

Buxar whereupon he also appended his signature (Ext -P1/PW-2).

24. Strangely enough this witness PW-2, has stated in

his cross-examination that the written application was prepared by

his brother Narendra at his house itself and has also stated that the

person who wrote the application also came to Mahila P.S. and made

his signature thereupon. It would be evident from the FIR that the

signature of one Ajeet Kumar appears on the written report, but his

name is not mentioned by PW-2 and he has rather stated that it was

his brother Narendra, who had prepared the said written report at

home. It also does not stand to reason as to why the written report is

dated 20.03.2021 while PW-2 has admitted in para-7 of his evidence

that he had come home on 19.03.2021 (on the next date of the

incident) itself and has admitted in his examination-in-chief that on

the same day he had gone to the police station. The further statement

of PW-2 in para-13 of his evidence that he has not given any

statement with regard to the present incident earlier leads us to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
12/22

conclusion that his statement is being recorded for the first time in

the court and this fact itself erodes the credibility of the statement of

this witness. In any view of the matter, he has stated unambiguously

that whatever he has stated in the court, the same is based on the

information given by his wife (PW-3).

25. The case of the prosecution has thus been built up

and only rests on the evidence of the victim (PW-3), who is also the

informant of this case. While recording her examination-in-chief,

besides narrating the story of commission of rape by the appellants

Bhuwar Ram and Anil Ram, on the point of country made pistol and

knife, she has added that she was pushed on the ground and was

raped for ten minutes. This witness has however, clearly stated that

at her instance one Ajeet Kumar had written her report at Mahila P.S.

whereupon she put her signature (Ext-P2a/PW-3) and the signature

of said Ajeet Kumar was marked as (Ext-P2b/PW-3).The deposition

of this witness in her cross-examination shakes the very foundation

of the case, in as much as, the authenticity of the contents of the FIR

is itself shrouded in doubt. PW-3 has stated in her cross-examination

that the written report was not written before her and in the same

breath she states that the same was written before her at Mahila P.S.

one day after the incident. However, she even admits that while the

occurrence had taken place on 18.03.2021, the application forming

basis of the FIR was written on 20.03.2021, which is actually not the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
13/22

next day of the incident but two days after the incident. Further

damage to the prosecution case has been done by her statement that

she cannot state the contents of the written report by going through

the same, when she was asked the said question in her cross-

examination. Her narration of facts also varies in her statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she has stated that she remained at Mahila

P.S. for 3 days before medical examination. It thus appears that the

victim (PW-3) has been giving vacillating statements, thereby raising

a considerable suspicion on the veracity of her testimony.

26. It is now to be ascertained as to whether the story

of the prosecution as narrated by the victim (PW-3) and her husband

(PW-2) gains strength and support from other independent quarters,

being other independent witnesses or the medical evidence and the

objective evidence collected by the I.O., which is required in

accordance with rule of caution and prudence. So far as other

independent witnesses are concerned, there is absolutely no witness

even on the point of having seen the victim going out of the house at

the relevant time and the only independent witness being Munna

Ram (PW-1) has not supported the case of prosecution and has been

declared hostile. It is also a fact that neither Ajit Kumar, scribe of

the written report nor the other family members like the father-in-law

and brothers-in-law of the victim have been examined as witnesses,

although they were the ones who were present in the house on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
14/22

date of occurrence as disclosed by the informant herself in para-13 of

her evidence. As such, non-examination of independent witnesses

and other material witnesses weakens the credibility of the

prosecution case.

27. Adverting to the medical evidence adduced in the

present case, one Dr. Geeta Kumari, examined as PW-4, has

examined the victim on 20.03.2021 at around 6:00 p.m., and found

injuries in the nature of abrasion on face, arm, and abdomen with no

injuries on thighs and back. No injuries were found on perineum,

vulva and buttock. However, an old hymen rupture was found, which

would be natural as the prosecutrix is a married lady with child. The

result of the vaginal swab examination indicates that no spermatozoa

was found, either alive or dead, on low and high power of

microscopic examination. The doctor has thus opined that it was a

case of sexual intercourse apparent in past, and no evidence of

forceful sexual act was found at present. This witness has reiterated

in her cross-examination that she did not find any internal injury on

the internal part of the victim and also not found any forceful sexual

act on the person of the victim. The medical report bearing her

signature along with the signature of two other medical officers, who

were the members of the medical board, one of them being PW-6,

has been marked as (Ext-P5/PW-4). PW-5 and PW-6 are also

medical officers examined on the point of age of the victim, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
15/22

does not need much discussion as the informant has herself admitted

that her age was 22 years and she was a married lady with a child.

28. On appraisal of the medical evidence, it is apparent

that the same does not corroborate the story of the prosecution as the

doctor has stated in unambiguous terms that no sign of any forceful

sexual act was found on the person of the victim as against the

specific averment of the victim (PW-3) that she had received injuries

in her thigh as well, besides other internal injuries. The injury report

(Ext-P5/PW-4) clearly reveals that no injury was found on her thigh

and back, perineum and buttock which negates the story of the

victim being pushed on the ground. Her further allegation of

commission of rape also stands falsified by the specific opinion of

the doctor in the medical report supported by his evidence in court

that he did not find any injury over internal part of the victim and no

sign of any forceful sexual act was detected on the person of the

victim.

29. Further, from the evidence of the Investigating

Officer (PW-7), it appears that the investigation suffered from

several serious lapses and omissions which cast substantial doubt

upon the fairness and credibility of the prosecution case. The I.O.

admittedly neither prepared any seizure list with respect to the

clothes of the victim, as against the averment made by the victim

(PW-3), nor recovered any incriminating article from the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
16/22

place of occurrence. She further admitted that no videography,

photography or sketch map of the place of occurrence was prepared

during investigation and even the condition of the crops at the

alleged place of occurrence was not noted in the case diary, though

the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in an agricultural field

and the victim (PW-3) has made a statement that the crops in the said

field were pressed due to the incident. The I.O. also failed to

examine the owners or cultivators of the adjoining fields who could

have been material witnesses to the occurrence. It is also a fact that

no statement of the family members of the accused persons was

recorded and, despite surrender of the accused before the court,

neither were they medically examined nor confronted during

investigation for recording their defence. Such glaring omissions

materially affect the fairness, completeness and reliability of the

investigation.

30. In view of the aforesaid inconsistencies and

contradictions emerging from the testimony of the victim (PW-3),

the determinative issue that now arises for consideration is whether

her evidence inspires such confidence so as to qualify her as a

‘sterling witness.’ In this regard reliance is placed on the case of

Nirmal Prem Kumar & Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector

of Police, (2024 INSC 193) Cr. Appeal No. 1098 of 2024 dated

11.03.2024 and para 11 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
17/22

“11. It is a settled principle of law that witnesses may broadly be classified
into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and
(iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category,
conviction can be safely based upon the sole testimony of such witness,
whereas in the second, the testimony deserves outright rejection. However,
where the witness falls in the third category, the Court is required to exercise
greater caution and seek corroboration in material particulars as a rule of
prudence before recording a finding of guilt.”

31. After having analysed the trend of evidence as

disclosed by the victim (PW3), it would be difficult to place her in

the category of ‘sterling witness’ whose evidence would be complete

and sufficient in itself to base a conviction, as such, the evidence of

victim (PW3) must undergo a strict scrutiny in accordance with the

well-settled legal principles as established by law in a catena of

decisions. The concept of a sterling witness has been succinctly

discussed in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT

of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 and para 22 of the said

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is being reproduced as

hereunder:

“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very
high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.
The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to
accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be
relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What
would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the
initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and
consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
18/22

be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be
in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any
doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the
sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every
one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons
used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert
opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every
other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied
in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing
link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence
alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that
such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be
accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on
the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant
materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the
said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the
offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”

32. Further, in case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. State

of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 92 the Hon’ble Apex

Court has emphasised that where the sole testimony of the

prosecutrix suffers from material infirmities and does not inspire

confidence, it would be unsafe to sustain conviction solely on such

evidence without reliable corroboration. The relevant observations

made in paragraph-9 is being reproduced hereinbelow:

“9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the
mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by
any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
19/22

improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not
act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely
careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case
is improbable and unlikely to happen.”

33. This view was further reiterated in the case of

Birka Singh Vs. State of Telangana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine

SC 1454.

34. In support of the aforesaid proposition of law, it

would also be apposite to refer to the judgment of Santosh Prasad

Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that solitary version of

prosecutrix in a case under Section 376 of the IPC, is not to be taken

as gospel truth in absence of any other supporting or corroborative

evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also considered the

factum of delay in lodging of the First Information Report as also

the fact that the medical report of the victim did not support the

allegations made by her and considering all these facts cumulatively,

the accused was acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.

35. Similarly, in the present case, the testimony of the

victim (PW-3) appears to be vacillating and suffers from material

contradictions vis-à-vis the evidence of the medical officers as well

as the I.O., thereby eroding the credibility and veracity of the

prosecution case and failing to inspire confidence in the mind of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
20/22

Court. The prosecution case is further rendered doubtful in view of

the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. From the records of the

case, it is evident that the prosecutrix (P.W.3) had informed her

husband (PW.2) on phone call made through her brother-in-law (not

examined) on the night of the incident itself, yet he came on the

following day although his place of work was nearly 5 to 6

kilometres away. Further, despite the fact of his arrival on the

following day of the occurrence, i.e. on 19.03.2021, the F.I.R. was

lodged on 20.03.2021 and the prosecution has failed to tender any

explanation, much less plausible, for the same.

36. It is well settled that a prompt F.I.R. is an assurance

of truth while delay often results in embellishments and non-

explanation of delay, coupled with other circumstances has the

susceptibility of leading of collapse of prosecution case. Further, the

accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C., have specifically taken the plea of existence of monetary

dispute between the parties and such suggestion has been given to

the witness during cross-examination.

37. We have also noticed earlier that the case of the

prosecution is not gaining any strength from the medical evidence,

rather it runs in the contrary direction by non-lending of any

corroboration to the ocular testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.3) and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
21/22

her husband (P.W.2). The circumstance of these appellants waiting

for the victim to go out in the open field for attending the call of

nature in the night at around 9 pm in the month of March, as has

been alleged, does not seem probable enough to inspire confidence

of this Court.

38. As an upshot of the entire discussion, it emerges

that the cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances creates a

serious dent in the prosecution case and renders it unsafe to sustain

conviction solely on the basis of such evidence. In such view of the

matter, taking an overall perspective of the case, this Court is

constrained to conclude that the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence warrants interference and the appellants

deserve to be acquitted.

39. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment dated

11.05.2023 and order of sentence dated 17.05.2023 passed by the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge,

SC/ST (POA) Act, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.253 of 2021 [arising

out of Buxar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.26 of 2021] and record acquittal

of the appellants from the charges levelled against them, giving them

benefit of doubt.

40. The appellants are said to be in custody. They shall
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.674 of 2023 dt.05-05-2026
22/22

be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

41. Both these appeals thus stand allowed.

42. Let a copy of this judgment together with the learned

Trial Court’s records be sent down to the learned Trial Court.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

(Soni Shrivastava, J.)

Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.05.2026
Transmission Date 13.05.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.