Sole testimony of prosecutrix must be wholly reliable before conviction; inconsistent, unsupported evidence cannot displace acquittal.

Conviction may rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix only when that evidence is wholly reliable and worthy of credence; corroboration is not an absolute requirement. Where the testimony is materially inconsistent and unsupported by surrounding evidence, it is unsafe to interfere with an acquittal on that basis alone. The prosecutrix's account here contained inconsistencies on the time of the incident, her claim of shouting for help was not supported by the house owner, and the medical and forensic evidence did not corroborate the allegation. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court, and affirmed by the High Court, called for interference on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

Analysis: Conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be wholly reliable and worthy of credence, and corroboration is not an absolute requirement. Where the testimony is neither wholly reliable nor supported by surrounding evidence, it is unsafe to base conviction on that evidence alone. Here, the prosecutrix's account contained material inconsistencies as to the time of the alleged incident, her claim of shouting for help was not supported by the house owner, and the medical and forensic evidence did not corroborate the allegation of rape.

Conclusion: The prosecutrix's evidence was not wholly reliable, and the acquittal was not open to interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction may be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix only when that testimony is wholly reliable; where it is materially inconsistent and unsupported by surrounding evidence, acquittal cannot be interfered with.

---