Gauhati High Court holds that while the “core spectrum” of allegation may remain, inconsistencies in material particulars of the victim’s testimony necessitate corroboration for conviction in rape cases. The judgment applies Rai Sandeep and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram principles, and serves as binding authority for trial courts in Assam and persuasive precedent for other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Crl.A./150/2024 of INDRESWAR DEWRI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR |
| CNR | GAHC010014752024 |
| Date of Registration | 17-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Assam; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Evidence; Sexual Offences |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that while conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the victim in sexual offence cases if the testimony is consistent and trustworthy, material discrepancies in the victim’s statements before the police, magistrate, and trial court undermine her credibility. Since the supporting evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the victim’s narrative, and medical evidence did not support recent sexual intercourse, the sole testimony of the victim was insufficient for conviction. The verdict relies on the principle that both the core allegations and material surrounding facts must be consistent for the victim’s evidence to form the sole basis for conviction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Examined consistency and credibility of victim’s statements using the “sterling witness” standard from Rai Sandeep. Emphasised that material particulars surrounding core allegations must be consistent. Cited Asha Ram for prudential need for corroboration where victim’s testimony is inconsistent. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR on 21.03.2021 alleged the appellant raped a physically challenged woman in his house; the victim claimed force and gagging. The appellant allegedly set fire to his house and fled. Police registered a case under Sections 376(2)(L) and 436 IPC. At trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, including medical and investigating officers. The medical evidence showed no recent sexual intercourse but did show external injuries. The Sessions Judge convicted appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to 10 years RI. The High Court noted inconsistencies in the victim’s statements across three stages and lack of corroborating evidence, especially medical. Conviction and sentence were set aside. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh under the Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in considering the requirement of corroboration when inconsistencies exist in victim’s testimony in rape trials |
| Follows | Rai Sandeep v. State of NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 21; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram AIR 2006 SC 381 |
| Distinguishes | Phool Singh v. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 – applies only when testimony is consistent on material facts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Even if the core allegation of rape is consistent, material inconsistencies in the victim’s statements regarding surrounding facts can render her testimony insufficient for conviction.
- The court reaffirmed the need for corroboration where the victim’s statements differ materially across police, magistrate, and court.
- The case clarifies the scope of the “sterling witness” doctrine: Only a consistent narrative throughout all stages can sustain conviction without corroboration.
- Lawyers defending accused persons in sexual offence cases can rely on this judgment to demand corroboration when victim’s testimony contains material discrepancies.
- Medical evidence that does not support the victim’s claims can be decisive, especially when supporting witnesses are hearsay and timing of disclosures are inconsistent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court began by noting the settled law that conviction for rape can be based solely on the victim’s testimony if it is of “sterling” quality—consistent, credible, and unassailable (relying mainly on Rai Sandeep).
- Reviewed statements of the victim before police, magistrate, and trial court and identified material discrepancies regarding how the offence occurred and related events, beyond the core allegation of rape.
- Cited Rai Sandeep for the principle that both the core elements and surrounding facts must align; otherwise, the “sterling witness” standard is not met.
- Invoked Asha Ram for the rule that corroboration is a matter of prudence and becomes essential where the testimony is not consistent.
- Noted that all prosecution witnesses other than the victim were hearsay witnesses, with differing timings of when the incident was reported to them.
- Highlighted that medical evidence did not confirm recent sexual intercourse.
- Concluded lack of corroborative evidence and credibility issues required interference with conviction.
- Set aside the conviction and sentence, releasing the appellant.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Trial court erred in relying on victim’s Section 164 statement and doctor’s external injury evidence, as these were not spoken to in court by the victim.
- Material contradiction between oral and medical evidence (no recent intercourse found).
- Witnesses (PW-6) mentioned the victim suffered from epilepsy, which could explain external injuries.
- Victim’s deposition uncorroborated; medical report supports accused.
- None of victim’s family members were examined.
- Prosecution did not examine all charge-sheeted witnesses; non-examination is fatal.
- Key prosecution witnesses were hearsay; their testimony cannot suffice for conviction.
Respondent – State
- In sexual offence cases, trustworthy evidence of victim (before court and magistrate) suffices for conviction.
- Victim’s 164 CrPC statement corroborates trial deposition.
- FIR contents align with oral testimony.
- Relies on Phool Singh (2022) 2 SCC 74: consistent statements by victim are sufficient for conviction.
Respondent – Victim (Legal Aid Counsel)
- Victim is an injured witness; made consistent statements before court and magistrate.
- No motive for false implication.
- Appellant’s conduct (setting house on fire, fleeing) relevant under Section 8 Evidence Act.
- PW-2 saw the victim coming out from the appellant’s house and lying in her own courtyard, corroborating her version.
Factual Background
The case stems from an FIR lodged on 21 March 2021 by a physically challenged woman alleging that the appellant forcibly established physical relations with her after luring her into his house while she came to bathe at his hand pump. The incident allegedly took place on 20 March 2021. The appellant reportedly fled after setting fire to his house. Police registered Morigaon P.S. Case No. 194/2021 under Sections 376(2)(L) and 436 IPC. The trial resulted in conviction under Section 376(1) IPC, which was challenged in this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Section 376 IPC (punishment for rape); emphasised Section 376(1) vs. 376(2)(L) without specific discussion on distinction.
- Applied the “sterling witness” test from Supreme Court jurisprudence: if victim’s evidence is inconsistent, corroboration is necessary.
- Section 164 CrPC statements examined for weight and corroborative value.
- Referred to Section 8, Evidence Act regarding conduct of the accused as relevant.
Alert Indicators
- ✓ Precedent Followed – The High Court followed and clarified existing Supreme Court law (Rai Sandeep, Asha Ram) on the need for consistency and corroboration in sexual offence cases.