Supreme Court acquits accused in rape case due to doubts in prosecutrix testimony: Keshav vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) INSC 603 (30 April 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 30 April 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 603

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed a criminal appeal concerning allegations of abduction and rape. The core issue revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony and whether it could be solely relied upon for conviction. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, presiding over the case, ultimately acquitted the accused, citing significant doubts in the prosecution’s story and inconsistencies in the evidence presented.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on June 4, 2000, when two women, PW2 and PW3 (wives of siblings), left their matrimonial home after a quarrel with their mother-in-law. They claimed to be going to Kurla and boarded a tempo in which the accused (Keshav and another) were traveling. The accused allegedly promised to take them to Kurla without fare. However, the accused refused to stop at Kurla and instead took them to a field where they were allegedly raped by the accused, one after the other. The women alleged that after the assault, they were dropped at Gangakhed and then proceeded to Parbhani, where they stayed for about 15 days. An FIR was registered on June 20, 2000, after PW2’s father brought them back to their village.

Timeline:

Arguments

The appellants (accused) argued that the testimony of the victims, PW2 and PW3, was uninspiring and unbelievable. They pointed out several inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the prosecution’s story.

The respondent (State of Maharashtra) contended that the testimony of the victims was believable and mutually corroborated, and therefore, sufficient for conviction.

Submissions by the Appellants:

• ✓ The victims’ testimony regarding the events after leaving their matrimonial home was inconsistent and lacked credibility.
• ✓ There was no corroborative evidence to support their claim of staying in Parbhani for 15 days.
• ✓ PW4, who saw the victims in the tempo, did not identify the accused.
• ✓ The medical evidence (PW9) did not support the claim of forceful sexual intercourse.

Submissions by the Respondent:

• ✓ The testimony of the victims was consistent and mutually corroborative.
• ✓ The Trial Court and Appellate Court rightly relied on the testimony of PW4, who saw the victims in the tempo.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW2 and PW3) is reliable and inspires confidence, warranting a conviction based solely on their statements.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court referred to the following cases:

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: The Court discussed that if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it can be relied on even without corroboration. However, if reliance is difficult, the Court must look for evidence to lend assurance to her testimony.
• Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133: The Court cautioned that while rape causes great distress, a false allegation of rape can cause equal damage to the accused. The Court should be equally careful in protecting the accused from a false implication.

Judgment

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: The court used this authority to highlight the principle that the prosecutrix’s testimony should inspire confidence to be relied upon, which was found lacking in this case.
• Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133: The court applied the caution from this case to protect the accused from false implications, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of the evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was significantly influenced by the factual inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the victims’ testimony. While legal principles regarding the reliance on a prosecutrix’s testimony were considered, the specific facts of the case weighed more heavily in the final judgment.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s story to be riddled with inconsistencies and unsubstantiated details. The court noted, “The story put up by the prosecution as spoken of by PWs 2 and 3 are full of holes and it raises a grave suspicion in our minds which qualifies as reasonable doubt.” The absence of corroborative evidence regarding their stay in Parbhani and the failure of PW4 to identify the accused further weakened the prosecution’s case. As the court observed, “Looking for assurance, we find the entire narration to be unbelievable and not substantiated on its finer details.” The medical evidence presented by PW9, the doctor who examined the victims, also did not support the claim of forceful sexual intercourse, adding to the court’s skepticism. Ultimately, the court concluded, “In the totality of the circumstances, we are unable to place any reliance on the oral testimony of PWs 2 and 3.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence and be free from inconsistencies to be relied upon solely for conviction.
• ✓ Corroborative evidence is crucial in cases where the prosecutrix’s testimony is not entirely convincing.
• ✓ Courts must carefully evaluate the evidence to protect the accused from false implications.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case reinforces the principle that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be of sterling quality and inspire confidence to be the sole basis for conviction. The judgment also reiterates the importance of corroborative evidence and the court’s duty to protect the accused from false implications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in this case, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, due to significant doubts in the prosecution’s story and inconsistencies in the evidence. The court emphasized that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and inspire confidence, and in this instance, it did not meet that standard.