The Tripura High Court overturned a 20-year rape conviction, ruling that the victim’s lone testimony could not stand due to serious inconsistencies and doubtful evidence. The Court held that the prosecution’s case suffered from “fatal infirmities,” making conviction unsafe.
The High Court of Tripura has overturned the conviction of a man who had earlier been sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for allegedly raping a minor girl.
The Division Bench of Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution’s case had several major problems, material contradictions, and gaps in evidence.
The Court said that the sole testimony of the victim, without any reliable support, could not be used to uphold the conviction because of the many doubts and improbabilities in the story.
The case started after the victim’s mother filed an FIR on September 19, 2020. She claimed that on September 17, 2020, the accused took her daughter to his house, pulled her into a room, and had sexual intercourse with her.
A case was registered at Bishalgarh Women Police Station under Sections 376A and 376B of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet and the charges were changed to Sections 376AB and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused denied all charges.
The Trial Court examined 13 witnesses and convicted him under Section 376AB, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,00,000. He was also given three years imprisonment under Section 506.
During the appeal, the accused argued that the entire prosecution story was full of serious contradictions. The defense pointed out that the statements of the mother (PW-1), victim (PW-2), and father (PW-3) did not match each other.
PW-1 said the incident happened on September 17 and that she went to the accused’s house the next morning. But the victim told the doctor during her medical examination that the incident took place on September 8, 2020.
In court, she said she went to the accused’s house the same night of the incident. PW-3 said they went to the accused’s house 2–3 days later.
ALSO READ: Prajwal Revanna Rape Case: Special Court Reserves Verdict for July 30
The defense further argued that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. The accused is 5’7” tall while the girl was only 137 cm tall, and the defense said it was “practically improbable” that intercourse could have happened while both were standing, as claimed.
The defense also stressed that during the strict COVID-19 lockdown, when all family members were at home, the brothers and grandmother—who lived in the same house—were not examined as witnesses.
They also pointed out an existing boundary dispute between the two families and suggested that the accused may have been falsely implicated.
The appellant referred to Supreme Court judgments, including GNCT of Delhi Vs. Vipin @ Lalla (2025) and Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2020), to support the argument that courts cannot base a conviction only on the testimony of the prosecutrix if her version does not inspire confidence.
The State opposed the appeal and argued that the victim’s statement was consistent under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The Public Prosecutor said that any small contradictions were due to the illiteracy of the parents.
Referring to Birbal Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan (2023) and Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the State argued that courts must trust the testimony of a sexual-assault survivor without insisting on separate corroboration, and that demanding additional proof would amount to “adding insult to injury.”
After reviewing all evidence carefully, the High Court found several serious problems. The Court noted that the timeline given by the three main witnesses did not match at all.
It stated:
“The sequence of events following the alleged incident is inconsistent… which undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case.”
The medical evidence also created major doubts. The doctor said the injury was about 11 days old. But the alleged incident was said to have occurred on September 17, and the medical examination took place on September 19. The Court noted that this did not fit the prosecution’s version.
It observed:
“The medical evidence fails to corroborate the prosecution’s narrative… raising substantial doubt regarding the timeline.”
The Court also pointed out that the prosecution did not examine natural witnesses such as the victim’s brothers and grandmother, even though they were present in the house during the lockdown. The High Court also said that the admitted boundary dispute between the families created a real possibility of false implication.
After considering everything together, the High Court said that the contradictions, the doubtful medical evidence, the improbabilities in the incident as described, and the motive for false implication created a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.
ALSO READ: Pune Rape Case || Accused Datta Gade’s Lawyer Kidnapped & Assaulted
The Bench observed:
“Upon a careful and comprehensive appraisal of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution’s case suffers from fatal infirmities, making a conviction unsafe. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, combined with the improbabilities in the narrative, render the victim’s solitary, uncorroborated testimony insufficient to sustain a conviction.”
Based on these findings, the High Court allowed the appeal, cancelled the conviction and the sentence, and acquitted the accused of all charges. The Court also ordered that he be released immediately.
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More On Rape Case
