The Allahabad High Court has set aside a conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC in a child rape case, holding that the prosecution’s case cannot stand on the contradictory and hostile testimony of the sole eyewitness - the victim - when her in-court deposition directly contradicts her prior statements and lacks any corroborative evidence. The judgment underscores the non-negotiable requirement of judicial confidence in prosecutorial evidence, particularly in cases involving vulnerable witnesses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Prakash Pradhan, was charged with the rape of an eight-year-old girl on 26.04.2017 at Orai, Jalaun district, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution alleged that the victim, while sent by her father to summon the appellant, was sexually assaulted inside his house. The case was registered as Crime No. 422 of 2017 at Police Station Kotwali, Orai.
Key Facts
- The victim was a student at Aacharya Narendra Deo Inter College, Orai, admitted on 01.04.2016 (Ext. ka-9).
- On 26.04.2017 at approximately 12:30 p.m., the victim’s father, Nawab Khan (PW-1), sent her to the appellant’s residence to call him for work.
- Upon returning home, the victim was found bleeding from her private parts and tearfully recounted being assaulted.
- A written report (Ext. ka-1) was submitted by the father, leading to registration of the FIR (Ext. ka-4) on the same day.
- The victim was medically examined on 26.04.2017 by Dr. Kavita Kori (PW-4), who found a torn hymen at the 6 o’clock position and perineal tear at the 9 o’clock position, with slight bleeding from the external urethral meatus. The doctor opined this was consistent with recent forceful penetration.
- The Investigating Officer, S.H.O. Sanjay Gupta (PW-5), prepared a site plan (Ext. ka-6) and submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. ka-7) on 15.05.2017.
- The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC (Ext. ka-2) was recorded on 28.04.2017, in which she identified the appellant as the perpetrator.
- The appellant was formally charged on 10.07.2017 with offences under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Procedural History
- 26.04.2017: Alleged offence occurred.
- 26.04.2017: Written report (Ext. ka-1) submitted; FIR (Ext. ka-4) registered; G.D. entry made.
- 28.04.2017: Victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ext. ka-2).
- 15.05.2017: Charge-sheet submitted by S.H.O. Sanjay Gupta.
- 10.07.2017: Charges framed by Magistrate; case committed to Sessions Court.
- 14.12.2018: Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000.
- 04.05.2026: Allahabad High Court delivered judgment allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: The prosecution’s case collapsed due to the hostile testimony of the victim (PW-2) and the informant (PW-1). Both retracted their prior statements, denied identifying the appellant as the perpetrator, and described a different assailant - a tall, fair-complexioned boy aged 15 - 20 years. The appellant claimed he was not present at the scene on the day of the incident.
For the State: The medical evidence corroborated the version in the Section 164 statement. The trial court had rightly relied on the principle that hostile witness testimony may still be partially accepted if it supports the prosecution. The inconsistencies were attributed to intimidation or coaching.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He requested immediate release from custody, setting aside of the conviction and sentence, and dismissal of all charges.
The Legal Issue
Can a conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC be sustained when the sole eyewitness - the victim - turns hostile in court, retracts her prior consistent statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and identifies a different perpetrator, with no other independent evidence linking the accused to the crime?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the victim’s in-court testimony directly contradicted her earlier statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. She denied ever identifying the appellant as the assailant, claimed the rape occurred at a different location, and described a stranger as the perpetrator. The informant (PW-1) similarly recanted his FIR version under cross-examination. The prosecution’s reliance on the prior statements was legally impermissible because the victim herself disowned them. No other witness placed the appellant at the scene. The medical evidence, while confirming assault, could not identify the perpetrator. The trial court erred in relying on the prior statements despite the victim’s categorical denial.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the victim’s hostile conduct was a result of pressure or intimidation, and her earlier statements under Section 164 CrPC remained admissible under the doctrine of hostile witness. Citing Koli Lakhmanbhai Chandabhai v. State of Gujarat and State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, the State argued that portions of the prior statements consistent with the prosecution case could be relied upon. The medical report corroborated the occurrence of rape, and the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was correct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the victim’s testimony across all stages: her initial report, her Section 164 statement, and her in-court deposition. It noted that the victim, in her examination-in-chief, stated: "Prakash Pradhan had done nothing with me. A boy, who met her on the way, did something wrong with her." In cross-examination, she explicitly denied giving the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and claimed she did not know the appellant.
"One of the said statements is definitely false. She is not a reliable witness. The testimony of the victim is inconsistent and same inspires no confidence and there are material contradictions which shake the prosecution case."
The Court emphasized that while the law permits reliance on parts of a hostile witness’s prior statement if corroborated, such reliance is only permissible when the prior statement is credible and the contradiction is not total or self-defeating. Here, the victim’s in-court version was not merely inconsistent - it was diametrically opposed to her prior statement. She did not merely retract parts; she replaced the entire narrative with a new, uncorroborated account involving an unidentified stranger.
The Court further held that the medical evidence, while confirming sexual assault, could not establish identity of the perpetrator. No eyewitness, forensic, or circumstantial evidence placed the appellant at the scene. The prosecution failed to establish motive, opportunity, or any link between the appellant and the act.
The Court distinguished State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena and Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, noting that those cases involved victims whose testimony remained credible and consistent throughout. In this case, the victim’s testimony was not merely unreliable - it was self-contradictory and devoid of internal coherence. The Court concluded:
"The principle of law as laid down by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the testimony of hostile witnesses shall not be completely discarded... cannot be disputed, but the way it had been applied in the facts and circumstances of this case, that was totally uncalled for and unwarranted."
The trial court’s reliance on the prior statement, despite the victim’s categorical denial, was legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2018 under Section 376(2)(i) IPC. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He was directed to be released forthwith from custody, if not detained in any other case. The trial court record was ordered to be returned to the concerned court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Hostile Victim Testimony Cannot Substitute Corroboration
- Practitioners must treat a victim’s in-court retraction as a fatal flaw if it contradicts prior statements and introduces a new, uncorroborated narrative.
- Medical evidence alone cannot establish identity of the accused in rape cases; it only confirms occurrence, not perpetrator.
- Prosecution cannot rely on prior statements under Section 164 CrPC if the victim explicitly denies them in court.
Judicial Caution Must Prevail Over Procedural Convenience
- Courts must not mechanically apply the doctrine of hostile witness to salvage weak cases.
- When the sole eyewitness disowns her prior testimony and identifies a different assailant, the burden shifts entirely to the prosecution to prove the accused’s involvement through independent evidence.
- Convictions under Section 376 IPC require more than a plausible version - they require judicial certainty.
Prior Statements Are Not Automatically Admissible
- A Section 164 statement is not a standalone proof of guilt; its admissibility depends on the witness’s credibility at trial.
- If the witness repudiates the statement and the prosecution fails to prove coercion or external influence, the prior statement loses evidentiary value.
- Trial courts must conduct a rigorous, case-specific analysis - not a formulaic application of precedents.
