The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of two individuals in a rape case because of inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and the prosecution's inability to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required when challenging an acquittal for such a serious crime.

The Division Bench consisting of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pointed out that in legal precedent, the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is typically enough to secure the conviction of the accused in a rape case. However, this testimony must be credible and dependable. To establish the guilt of the accused, if the testimony of the prosecutrix is uncertain or unreliable, it should be supported by medical evidence, the testimony of other witnesses, and other evidence presented during the trial. Additionally, the statements made by the prosecutrix regarding the rape allegation also play a significant role in this regard.

According to the provided case summary, the prosecution's case revolved around an incident that occurred on the night of March 26, 1997. It was alleged that a 45-year-old woman, the prosecutrix, went to a house to deliver food to her brother, Deva Anand. When she did not return, her son, Kailash, went to the same location and found his mother unconscious. She was then taken to DDU Hospital, where she initially refused to provide a statement. However, upon returning home, she accused the defendants of raping her. Following her complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed, resulting in the arrest of the accused individuals. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed, and charges under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were framed, leading to a trial for the accused persons.

After evaluating witness testimonies and presented evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of rape against any of the accused. Consequently, no offense was established against either of the accused, resulting in their acquittal.

The State's counsel contended that the Trial Court's decision was in conflict with the available evidence in the case. They argued that the discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecutrix were relatively insignificant and could be reasonably expected, and therefore, they should not be viewed as fatal to the prosecution's case.

Following the State's counsel's arguments, the Bench referred to the precedent set in the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P [(2002) 4 SCC 85] and emphasized that when the High Court is tasked with overturning an acquittal decision made by the trial court, it is required to conduct a re-evaluation of the evidence presented in the case.

The Bench recognized that the prosecutrix had offered two contradictory explanations concerning the involvement of the accused individuals. In light of these inconsistent statements, the Bench noted that the prosecutrix's testimony did not instill confidence in the court when it came to supporting the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, the Bench noted that the medical and scientific evidence, as well as the testimony of witnesses, had seriously undermined the prosecution's case. The Bench emphasized that it could not disregard the potential motive behind the prosecutrix implicating the accused individuals, which may have stemmed from a property dispute between the parties.

Simultaneously, the Bench acknowledged that the accused had been acquitted of the serious charge of rape. When challenging this acquittal, the prosecution bore the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the court's considered opinion, the prosecution had completely failed to meet this burden, primarily because there was a lack of substantial evidence or material in the case records.

As a result, the High Court determined that the judgment of the Trial Court should not be overturned and, accordingly, upheld the acquittal of the accused individuals.

Case: State v. Devanand and Ors, CRL.A.344/2003.