Rape conviction needs reliable corroboration and proof beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent testimony led to acquittal on all charges.

Conviction for rape and allied offences cannot stand where the prosecutrix's account contains material contradictions and embellishments, is not consistently supported by other witnesses, and is not conclusively corroborated by medical or forensic evidence. The Court found that the sexual act was not proved to be non-consensual beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction under section 376(2)(g) IPC was set aside. The charges of wrongful confinement, house trespass and criminal intimidation also failed because the prosecution did not reliably prove obstruction, unlawful entry with intent to cause hurt, or a legally sufficient threat. The appellants were acquitted of all charges.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for rape and the allied offences was sustainable on the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses; (ii) Whether the ingredients of wrongful confinement, house trespass and criminal intimidation were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for rape and the allied offences was sustainable on the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses.

Analysis: The evidence contained material contradictions and embellishments regarding the manner of occurrence, the presence and role of other witnesses, and the sequence of events after the alleged incident. The prosecutrix's version was not supported consistently by the landlord and adjoining tenant, both of whom were treated as hostile, and the surrounding circumstances showed that the prosecutrix had opportunities to raise alarm but did not do so. The medical and forensic material did not conclusively corroborate forcible sexual assault. On the overall evidence, the sexual act was not proved to be non-consensual beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustainable and the appellants were entitled to acquittal on this charge.

Issue (ii): Whether the ingredients of wrongful confinement, house trespass and criminal intimidation were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The prosecution failed to establish voluntary obstruction amounting to wrongful confinement, unlawful entry with preparation for causing hurt or assault, or a legally sufficient threat intended to cause alarm. The testimony on these charges was inconsistent and unreliable, and the alleged threats and restraint were not proved with the requisite certainty.

Conclusion: The charges under sections 342, 452 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not proved.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for sexual offence and allied charges cannot be sustained where the prosecution evidence is materially inconsistent, unsupported by reliable corroboration, and fails to prove the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

---