Sexual offence conviction set aside where medical evidence and surrounding circumstances failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was found unsustainable where the prosecution evidence did not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of injuries, semen on the prosecutrix's private parts, torn clothes, or hair of the accused on her person, together with the doctor's statement that she was habituated to sexual intercourse, meant the surrounding medical evidence did not support the allegation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings reflected an incorrect appreciation of evidence, granted benefit of doubt, and set aside the convictions, resulting in acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the evidence on record.

Analysis: The medical evidence did not show injuries on the prosecutrix, there was no sign of semen on her private parts, her clothes were not torn, and no hair of the accused was found on her person. The examining doctor also stated that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. On this material, the evidence did not establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the concurrent findings of guilt were held to be based on an incorrect appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was acquitted and the convictions recorded by the courts below were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for a sexual offence cannot be sustained where the prosecution evidence fails to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the medical and surrounding circumstances do not support the allegation.

---