Credible prosecutrix testimony can sustain conviction despite minor medical inconsistencies when corroborated by surrounding and forensic evidence.

Minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence do not by themselves create reasonable doubt unless the contradiction is direct and material. Here, the prosecutrix's testimony, medical tenderness, and forensic findings of semen and spermatozoa were read together, and the absence of injuries or an intact hymen was not treated as conclusive against limited penetration or attempted sexual assault. The prosecutrix was found competent and reliable, and her evidence was corroborated by an eye-witness account, prompt reporting, recovery of articles, and forensic material. The appellate court was entitled to interfere with the acquittal because the trial court had ignored material evidence and adopted an unsustainable approach, so the conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. (ii) Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to sustain the conviction for the offences charged and to justify interference with the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.

Analysis: Minor or peripheral variations between medical and ocular evidence do not discredit the prosecution unless the contradiction is direct and material. The prosecutrix's account, the medical opinion noting tenderness, and the FSL findings of semen and spermatozoa on the relevant articles and swabs were read together. The absence of injuries and the intact hymen were held not conclusive, particularly where the evidence indicated at least limited penetration or attempted sexual assault.

Conclusion: The alleged discrepancy did not create a material doubt and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to sustain the conviction for the offences charged and to justify interference with the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.

Analysis: The prosecutrix was found competent and reliable, and her evidence was supported by the independent eye-witness account, prompt reporting, recovery of articles, and forensic evidence. A prosecutrix in a sexual offence case is not to be treated as an accomplice, and conviction may rest on her trustworthy testimony. In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court may interfere where the trial court has ignored material evidence, adopted an unsustainable approach, or recorded a perverse finding. The Trial Court's appreciation of evidence was held to be erroneous, and the High Court's reversal of acquittal was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and interference with the acquittal was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, the conviction under the relevant offences was sustained, and the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was validly reversed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sexual offence prosecution, credible testimony of the prosecutrix, if corroborated by surrounding circumstances and forensic evidence, can sustain conviction even without complete medical congruence; and an appellate court may reverse an acquittal where the trial court has ignored material evidence or returned a perverse finding.

---