The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of an accused charged with the rape of an eight-year-old child, ruling that a conviction cannot be sustained on the uncorroborated, progressive statements of a child witness who fails to meet the standard of a “sterling witness.” A division bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay allowed the criminal appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to material improvements in the victim’s narrative and a complete lack of medical corroboration.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on May 9, 2017, at around 12:00 noon, when the eight-year-old daughter of the informant went to buy some item from a shop. According to the written report, while returning near the house of the accused, Kuntesh, he pressed the victim’s throat, causing her to fall down and become unconscious.
The victim’s father (the informant) approached the police and lodged a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) alleging physical assault. Based on this, an FIR (Case Crime No. 121/2017) was registered on May 10, 2017, under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 354-B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
During the investigation, following the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), Section 376 (rape) of the IPC was added. The Investigating Officer subsequently submitted a charge-sheet against Kuntesh under Sections 323, 376 of the IPC, and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
On January 31, 2019, the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Auraiya convicted Kuntesh and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 under Section 376 IPC, one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC, and ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. Kuntesh challenged this trial court verdict before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellant-accused, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, argued that Kuntesh had been entirely falsely implicated due to an old enmity and village rivalry (“party bandi”). He submitted that when the victim’s father first approached the police to lodge the complaint, he was accompanied by the victim. Despite her presence, he only reported physical assault, leading to an NCR under Section 323 IPC, and later molestation under Section 354-B IPC, rather than rape.
The appellant further contended that during his trial court examination, the father strictly adhered to his original complaint and did not raise any allegations of rape, which points to a later fabrication. He highlighted glaring contradictions in the victim’s statements, pointing out that in her initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she only alleged “gandi baat” (bad talk/behavior) without mentioning any physical or sexual acts. The allegation of rape was introduced as a gross improvement for the first time before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Finally, the defense argued that the allegation of rape was completely unsupported by the medical evidence on record.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Sri Amit Sinha, representing the State, submitted that there was no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the trial court’s judgment. He contended that the child victim (PW-1) was a consistent, reliable, and sterling witness whose oral testimony could not be doubted. The State argued that under settled law, a conviction can be validly sustained on the sole testimony of a competent and sterling child witness even without extensive corroboration.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court evaluated the evidence under the framework of the Indian Evidence Act, specifically focusing on Section 134, which prioritizes the quality of evidence over quantity, and Section 118, which recognizes a child as a competent witness.
The bench observed that while a conviction can legally rest on the sole testimony of a child witness, such evidence must be evaluated with extreme care. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Panchhi and Ors. v. State of U.P. [(1998) 7 SCC 177], the court noted:
“the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.”
Regarding the omission of the rape allegation in the initial report, the court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384]:
“in cases of sexual assault, mere delay in lodging the FIR or the failure to report the incident at the very first instance is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case, given the social stigma and trauma involved for the victim and her family.”
However, the court observed that the facts of the present case went beyond mere delay. The father of the victim (PW-2), during his trial court deposition, completely confined his testimony to his original written complaint regarding physical assault and did not allege rape, clarifying that he had only narrated what his daughter had told him. The court noted that this material omission at the earliest opportunity cast a heavy shadow of doubt on the genesis of the prosecution’s case.
The court then assessed whether the child victim met the standard of a “sterling witness” to support a conviction on sole testimony. Citing Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21], the court defined a sterling witness as:
“a witness whose version is wholly reliable, natural, and inspires absolute confidence, requiring no corroboration whatsoever.”
The Supreme Court in that case had observed that:
“the testimony of a sterling witness must be of such impeccable quality that the court instinctively accepts it as the unvarnished truth.”
The High Court found that the victim could not be categorized as a sterling witness because of the progressive improvements made in her statements. The bench referenced State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ lalla 2025 SCC OnLine SC 78, which reaffirmed that courts must be extremely careful when examining a sole prosecutrix. It also cited Urmila Devi vs State of H.P. and others 2025:HHC:34588-DB, observing:
“in the cases where the prosecutrix made improvements in her statements step by step, it becomes difficult to ascertain that which of her version is trustworthy and reliable.”
Additionally, the High Court pointed out that the medical evidence failed to offer any corroboration. The Medical Officer (PW-4), Dr. Seema Gupta, explicitly stated that it was not necessary that rape had been committed against the victim. The court noted the intact hymen, the complete absence of internal and external injuries, and the complete absence of seminal fluids, which together cast a significant shadow of doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
Decision of the Court
The High Court held that in the absence of definitive corroborative medical evidence, and considering the step-by-step improvements in the child witness’s testimony alongside the conduct and statements of her father, it was highly unsafe to sustain the conviction.
Applying the established criminal jurisprudence rule that when two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted, the court granted the appellant the benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentencing order dated January 31, 2019, passed by the Trial Court. The appellant, Kuntesh, was acquitted of all charges under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC and the POCSO Act, and was ordered to be released from custody forthwith.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kuntesh v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5563 of 2019
Bench: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
Date: June 3, 2026
