The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of two men, Manoj (A1) and Mukesh (A3), who were accused of wrongfully confining and repeatedly raping a woman for nearly a year. The Court observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW3) suffered from material improvements and “drastic variations,” rendering her a witness who does not meet the “sterling quality” standard required for a conviction based on sole testimony.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, while allowing the appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case originated from a First Informant Statement (FIS) recorded on June 12, 2012. It was alleged that the appellants, along with a woman named Babita (A2) and an auto driver Zakir (A4), kept the prosecutrix wrongfully confined at a house in Govind Puri, New Delhi.
According to the initial complaint, the victim was taken to the house seven days prior to her rescue. However, during the trial, the version changed to allege confinement for an entire year, during which she was subjected to repeated rape, physical assault, and sexual exploitation by multiple persons. On December 20, 2016, the trial court convicted Manoj for offences under Sections 342, 323, 34, 376, and 376(2)(g) of the IPC, and Mukesh under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, sentencing them to 11 and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for Manoj (A1) argued that the prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent and underwent material improvements at every stage. He pointed out multiple occasions where she had the opportunity to raise an alarm or escape, yet failed to do so.
The counsel for Mukesh (A3) contended that his client was never named in the FIS or the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC). The allegations against him—including administering injections and arranging multiple men for sexual assault—only surfaced as material improvements during the trial.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State argued that even if the prosecutrix was not a “sterling witness,” her version was corroborated by independent witnesses (PW12 and PW14), who testified to her seeking help from a bathroom window.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court focused on whether the prosecutrix could be considered a “sterling witness,” referring to the legal standard established in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21. The Court noted that for a conviction to be based on sole testimony, the statement must be natural, consistent, and free from prevarication.
Justice Sudha observed a “drastic variation” regarding the duration of the crime:
“In Ext. PW3/A FIS, PW3 alleges that the incident had taken place about seven days prior to her rescue. However, in her deposition before the Court, she altered her version and deposed that she had been wrongfully confined and sexually exploited for nearly one year. Such a drastic variation cannot be treated as a minor discrepancy.”
Regarding the allegations against Mukesh (A3), the Court noted:
“The name of A3 does not find mention in the medical history… PW3 did not attribute any clear or specific role to A3 in Ext. PW3/A FIS. However, in her deposition before the Court, PW3 alleged that A3 used to administer injections, arrange for multiple men to sexually assault her, and repeatedly committed rape upon her. These allegations surfaced for the first time before the trial court and constitute material improvements.”
The Court also found the claim of continuous confinement for a year implausible, noting the victim had given birth during this period and had been taken to a doctor:
“She admits that she was taken out several times and even to a doctor. It is difficult to believe that in none of the instances including the time of her delivery, she was unable to bring the abuse to the notice of any person and that it was impossible for her to escape or raise alarm.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to bridge the gaps created by the inconsistent testimony. While independent witnesses (PW12 and PW14) confirmed the rescue, their evidence did not corroborate the specific allegations of long-term confinement or repeated sexual assault.
The Court held:
“The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and so they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and A1 and A3 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.”
- Case Title: Manoj vs. State (CRL.A. 352/2017) & Mukesh vs. State NCT of Delhi (CRL.A. 887/2017)
- Case Number: CRL.A. 352/2017 and CRL.A. 887/2017
- Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1657
