The Kerala High Court has reiterated that while a rape survivor’s testimony can independently serve as the basis for conviction, it must exhibit consistency and possess sterling quality to be relied upon.

Justice C.S. Sudha, presiding over the case, upheld the acquittal of the accused, who was charged under Sections 452, 511 of 376, and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court reasoned that relying solely on testimony riddled with inconsistencies would be unsafe for convicting the accused.

The case stemmed from allegations that, on April 13, 2008, the accused unlawfully entered the bathroom of an 18-year-old Paniya tribal woman (PW1) and attempted to sexually assault her. It was further alleged that the accused later lured the survivor to a nearby quarry with promises of sweets and money, where he raped her twice and threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed the incidents. The survivor narrated the events to her stepmother (PW5), who claimed she found her crying near the bathroom shortly after the alleged assault.

The complaint was filed on the same day, and a medical examination revealed a torn hymen but no recent signs of force.

However, inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony undermined the prosecution's case. Key witnesses, including her stepmother (PW5) and sister (PW6), offered partial corroboration but also gave conflicting accounts, while PW2 and PW4, alleged eyewitnesses, turned hostile. The survivor’s narrative shifted between allegations of attempted rape and completed acts of rape on the same day, further complicating the case. The defence highlighted these contradictions alongside the lack of corroborative evidence.

The trial court, citing insufficient proof, acquitted the accused, prompting the State to appeal the verdict.

The High Court, dismissing the appeal, noted significant contradictions in the survivor’s statements regarding the sequence and locations of the alleged incidents. It also observed the absence of support from key witnesses and inconclusive medical evidence.

Emphasising the principle of benefit of doubt, the court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, concluding that the prosecution’s case lacked the requisite standard of proof.

Cause Title: State of Kerala v. Sreekanth [CRL.A NO. 125 OF 2014]