Rape conviction unsustainable where inconsistent testimony, missing corroboration, and withheld evidence left guilt unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC was found unsustainable because the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies between the trial testimony, the Section 164 CrPC statement, and the earlier version of events. The absence of prompt complaint, lack of supporting medical or physical evidence, non-examination of natural family witnesses, and withholding of the best available evidence on age weakened the prosecution case. The Court also noted the failure to examine hotel witnesses and to recover relevant material evidence. On the totality of the record, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the evidence led by the prosecution.

Analysis: The prosecution version suffered from material inconsistencies between the trial testimony, the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the earlier version of the occurrence. The conduct attributed to the prosecutrix, the absence of prompt complaint, the lack of supporting medical or physical evidence, and the non-examination of natural witnesses from the prosecutrix's family created serious doubt. The Court also drew adverse inference from the withholding of the best available evidence on age and from the failure to examine hotel witnesses or recover relevant material evidence. In these circumstances, the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---