Section 376/511 IPC | Conviction Requires Corroboration When Victim Turns Hostile and Medical Evidence is Negative : Patna HC

The Patna High Court has set aside a conviction under Section 376/511 IPC in a child rape case where the prosecution’s case collapsed due to the victim’s hostile testimony, absence of medical corroboration, and failure to record her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The judgment underscores that even in sensitive cases involving minors, conviction cannot be sustained without reliable, consistent, and corroborated evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Dheeraj Sahni, was charged with attempting to commit rape upon his five-year-old cousin, Deepika Kumari, on 29.06.2012 at their shared residence in Village South Bhadas, Khagaria. The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the child into a room under the pretext of giving money, committed sexual assault, and fled upon being discovered by the child’s mother, Pinki Devi, who witnessed the act through a window.

Key Facts

• The victim, Deepika Kumari, was born on or about 2007, making her approximately five years old at the time of the alleged incident on 29.06.2012.
• The appellant and the victim’s family resided in the same household compound with a common courtyard.
• The informant, Pinki Devi (PW-7), is the maternal aunt of the appellant and the mother of the victim.
• The F.I.R. was lodged on 30.06.2012 under Section 376 IPC.
• The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was not recorded at any stage.
• The medical examination of the victim, conducted on 30.06.2012 by Dr. Manju Kumari (PW-6), revealed no external or internal injuries, no signs of recent sexual penetration, and no trauma to the genital area.
• The victim, when examined as PW-5 in court, categorically denied the occurrence, stated no rape had taken place, and failed to identify the appellant.
• Three prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) turned hostile during trial.
• The father of the victim (PW-4) admitted he was not an eyewitness and relied entirely on his wife’s account.
• The F.I.R. described the room as having a window through which the incident was witnessed, but the Investigating Officer’s case diary noted the room had no window or door.

Procedural History

• 29.06.2012: Alleged incident occurred.
• 30.06.2012: F.I.R. registered at Khagaria (Muffasil) Police Station, Case No. 329 of 2012.
• 10.09.2012: Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.
• 01.11.2012: Case committed to Sessions Court.
• 11.02.2014: Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC.
• 14.02.2014: Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine.
• 07.05.2026: Patna High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

The Parties' Positions

The prosecution relied solely on the testimony of the mother (PW-7) and the F.I.R., asserting that the victim’s hostile testimony was unreliable due to coercion or influence. The defence contended that the entire case was built on an uncorroborated, contradictory, and improbable account, with no medical or independent support.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He also sought release from custody and reimbursement of legal costs.

The Legal Issue

Can a conviction under Section 376/511 IPC be sustained when the victim turns hostile, no statement under Section 164 CrPC is recorded, medical evidence shows no sign of sexual assault, and the sole eyewitness account is materially inconsistent with the physical circumstances?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The learned Amicus Curiae argued that the prosecution case was fundamentally flawed. The testimony of PW-7, the only eyewitness, was riddled with contradictions: she claimed to have seen the act through a window, yet the case diary stated no such window existed. The victim, the most crucial witness, denied the occurrence and failed to identify the accused. The medical report confirmed no injury or trauma. The absence of a Section 164 CrPC statement deprived the prosecution of a vital corroborative tool. The court was urged to apply the principle that conviction cannot rest on a single, uncorroborated, and inherently improbable testimony.

For the Respondent

The State, through the APP, contended that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the conviction was based on the consistent version of the informant. It was argued that the victim’s retraction was influenced by family pressure and that the court should not overlook the gravity of the offence. However, no independent evidence or legal precedent was cited to counter the defence’s specific challenges to the evidence.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, emphasizing that in cases involving child victims, the law demands heightened scrutiny, not lowered standards of proof. The judgment cited Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand to affirm that a Section 164 CrPC statement, if recorded, carries significant weight and cannot be discarded without strong justification. Here, no such statement was recorded, leaving the prosecution without any prior consistent account from the victim.

"The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded at all, thereby depriving the prosecution of a vital piece of substantive corroborative evidence ordinarily relied upon in cases of this nature."

The Court further relied on Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Ganesan v. State, which hold that while the sole testimony of a victim may suffice if reliable, it cannot be the basis for conviction when the victim herself repudiates the allegation. The victim’s denial and failure to identify the accused struck at the core of the prosecution’s case.

The medical evidence, as deposed by PW-6, was unequivocal: no injury, no trauma, no sign of penetration. The Court noted that in child rape cases, absence of medical evidence does not automatically mean the offence did not occur, but when combined with hostile testimony and contradictions in the eyewitness account, it fatally undermines the prosecution’s case.

The Court also highlighted the contradiction between the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer’s case diary regarding the presence of a window. This inconsistency, coupled with the fact that the informant was a close relative with potential for animosity, rendered her testimony inherently suspect.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The principles in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra were applied: where the version of the prosecutrix is inconsistent with medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The Verdict

The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 376/511 IPC dated 11.02.2014 and 14.02.2014 were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Patna High Court directed the Legal Services Committee to pay Rs. 10,000 to the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, as consolidated fee. The lower court records were ordered to be returned forthwith.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Hostile Victim Testimony Is Fatal to Prosecution Without Corroboration

• Practitioners must treat the retraction of a child victim’s testimony as a critical turning point, not a mere procedural irregularity.
• If the victim denies the offence in court and no prior judicial statement under Section 164 CrPC exists, the prosecution’s case is likely unsustainable.
• Courts will not infer guilt from the gravity of the offence alone; the burden of proof remains on the prosecution.

Medical Evidence Is Not Optional - It Is Foundational

• In sexual assault cases involving minors, absence of injury does not automatically exonerate, but its presence is often necessary to corroborate ocular testimony.
• When medical reports conclusively show no trauma or signs of penetration, and no other independent evidence exists, conviction becomes legally untenable.
• Defence counsel should insist on medical reports being scrutinized at the earliest stage and challenge any conviction based on speculative ocular testimony.

Section 164 CrPC Recordings Are Non-Negotiable in Child Cases

• Prosecutors must ensure that statements under Section 164 CrPC are recorded promptly and properly in all child sexual abuse cases.

• Failure to record such a statement creates a fatal evidentiary gap that cannot be filled by the testimony of relatives or hearsay witnesses.

• Appellate courts will not overlook this procedural failure, especially when the victim turns hostile.

• Always cross-examine the informant’s relationship with the accused for potential bias.

• Never rely on a single eyewitness in child rape cases without medical or corroborative evidence.

• Argue for acquittal under Section 376 IPC if the victim’s testimony is inconsistent, uncorroborated, and the medical evidence is negative.