High Court Affirms Supreme Court’s “Sterling Witness” Standard, Quashes Conviction Due to Contradictions and Lack of Corroboration
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/253/2025 of DILEEP THAPA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010045762025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Clarifies application of the “sterling witness” rule in rape prosecutions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a rape conviction can be upheld solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it lacks unblemished, trustworthy quality and is uncorroborated. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The High Court applied the test from Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) that a lone prosecutrix’s evidence must be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished, and of sterling quality. Material contradictions—about mode of entry, identification by mobile light, timing of complaint and FIR—and absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence undermined confidence in the sole testimony. The court also noted enmity between parties, suggesting possible motive to fabricate. In these circumstances, the solitary testimony could not sustain a conviction, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The necessity for an unblemished and trustworthy solitary testimony in rape cases; application of “sterling witness” criterion. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony. On appeal, the court found inconsistencies in her version, delay in FIR registration, and lack of medical/FSL corroboration. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44672 (Cr. A. No. 253 of 2025) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India |
| Follows | Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if marred by material contradictions, delay in FIR, or lack of supporting medical/forensic evidence, cannot sustain a rape conviction.
- Underscores enmity or land disputes as relevant context that may undermine credibility.
- Reinforces Krishan Kumar Malik standard: solitary evidence must be “absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality.”
- Advisable to scrutinize timelines (oral complaint vs. FIR registration) and physical feasibility of the alleged occurrence.
- Medical examination delays and absence of forensic recovery (e.g., mobile torch, broken wall) are critical points for defense.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Court applied the “sterling witness” test from Krishan Kumar Malik requiring solitary prosecutrix evidence to be unblemished and of high credibility.
- Identified material contradictions in the prosecutrix’s account: entry by jumping wall (no evidence of a broken wall), identification by mobile light (no torch recovered), timing of complaint vs. FIR registration.
- Medical and FSL reports did not support allegations of rape or presence of accused’s DNA.
- Existing enmity over land between parties suggested potential motive to fabricate.
- Conclusion: In absence of any corroboration, the testimony failed any of the tests of a sterling witness, warranting acquittal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Appellant
- The prosecutrix’s testimony contained material contradictions and was recorded inconsistently with the FIR and investigation.
- No corroborative medical or forensic evidence; significant delays further undermined credibility.
- Continuing conviction on sole untrustworthy testimony amounted to miscarriage of justice.
Factual Background
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 376 IPC based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony alleging rape after he climbed a compound wall. She claimed identification by mobile torch, filed an oral complaint at 10 a.m., but the FIR was registered only at 4 p.m. No mobile torch or broken wall was recovered. Medical and forensic evidence failed to corroborate the prosecution. The High Court heard the appeal and allowed it, acquitting the appellant.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376, IPC: defines rape and penalizes perpetrators.
- Requirement of sterling quality for sole prosecutrix testimony derived from judicial precedents, interpreted in line with Evidence Act principles regarding witness credibility and corroboration.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing law on solitary testimony in rape cases.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44672 (Cr. A. No. 253 of 2025)
- Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130
- Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443