1 2025:CGHC:60213-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2007 of 2022 Mohamad Alam S/o Jaan Mohammad Aged About 41 Years R/o Pugmil P.S. Katkam Sandi, District Hajaribagh (Jharkhand), Present Address Dhimrapur, Ashok Vihar Colony, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Kotra Road, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Mr. Anmol Varma & Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Advocate CRA No. 2423 of 2025 1 - Yusub Sheikh S/o Moti Sheikh Aged About 42 Years R/o Baliya Police Station Sagoradih, District Mursidabad (West Bengal) Present Address Urdana Welcome Dhaba, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Pyarul Sheikh S/o Moti Sheikh Aged About 30 Years R/o Baliya Police Station Sagoradih, District Mursidabad (West Bengal) Present MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.12 11:18:40 +0530 2 Address Urdana Welcome Dhaba, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotra Road, District - Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Giri and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Advocate CRA No. 261 of 2023 Smt. Surbhi Sidar W/o Late Shivkumar Sidar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sabdega, Police Station Talsara, District Sundergarh (Udisa), Present R/o Mangaludeepa, Ila Mall Ke Pichhe, Mohit Ke Kiraye Ka Makan, Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotra Road, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Giri and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Advocate 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 11.12.2025 1. These criminal appeals filed by the appellants directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atoricites Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act No. 48/2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted as under: Appellant Conviction under Section Sentence Mohammad Alam, Yusub Sheikh and Pyarul Sheikh Section 376 of the IPC (each) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for 12 years an fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year additional R.I. Surbhi Sidar Section 370(A)2 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default, 07 days additional R.I. Section 370 of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, 07 days additional R.I. 4 2. The gist of the prosecution story is that after the death of the victim’s mother, her father used to beat her, due to which she left home and came to Raigarh two months prior to the incident to earn a living. There she met the accused Surabhi Sidar, who took her to her house, where the victim began working. After some days, the accused allegedly started sending the victim to work for various unknown persons, who sexually assaulted her. The victim later came to know that the accused was sending her to those persons for physical exploitation and was taking money from them. When the victim refused to continue, the accused threatened her and attempted to take her to Haryana in a truck for the purpose of trafficking. Near Raipur, the victim managed to escape and was taken by some persons to Pratigya Vikas Sansthan Open Shelter Home, Telibandha, Raipur. Upon her medical examination there, it was found that she was pregnant. She narrated the entire incident to the Superintendent, and on the basis of her written complaint, an unnumbered FIR (Crime No. 0/2020) under Sections 370, 370A, 376 IPC was registered at Telibandha Police Station against the accused Surabhi Sidar and two-three unknown persons. Her medical examination was conducted after obtaining consent, and her dark blue bloomer was seized in the presence of witnesses. 3. Since the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Kotraroad Police Station, FIR No. 208/2020 was registered there. The victim was medically examined at KGH, Raigarh, her vaginal 5 slide and underwear were seized, the spot map was prepared, and several relevant documents including the shelter home report, counselling reports, medical records, sonography report, health slip, CWC documents, and Child Line records were seized. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh. The victim was thereafter sent to Sakhi Centre, Raigarh for protection. Identification proceedings were conducted, the accused were arrested and medically examined, patwari map was prepared, and various documents including her temporary social status certificate and school progress report were seized. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences under Sections 370, 370A, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Charges were framed accordingly against accused Surabhi Sidar under Sections 370, 370A(2), 370A(5) IPC, and against accused Mohammad Alam, Yusub Sheikh, and Pyaarul Sheikh under Sections 370A(2), 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 5. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Their statements under Sections 281 and 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein they pleaded innocence, and accused Surabhi Sidar stated that she had not committed any offence. 6. In order to bring home offence, prosecution examined as many as 6 20 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused were given an opportunity to present evidence in their defence. Accused Mohammad Alam in his defence has produced the statements of Chenkumar (DW-1), Jaharmati (DW-2), Umin Pando (DW-3) and Kotwar Bodhan Ekka (DW-4). No witness has been produced in the defence on behalf of the remaining accused. 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the judgment dated 24.11.2022 and thereby convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is wholly erroneous in facts and law, and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the material contradictions, omissions, and infirmities in the prosecution case. It is submitted that though the appellants Mohd. Alam, Yusuf Sheikh and Pyarul Sheikh were charged under Sections 370A and 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and co-accused Smt. Surabhi Sidar was charged under Sections 370 and 370A(2) IPC, the trial Court has convicted them without any legally admissible, reliable, or corroborative evidence. It is urged that there is unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR: though the alleged incidents are said to have occurred much prior to 06.09.2020, the FIR was 7 lodged only on 17.10.2020. The victim herself admitted in her evidence that she was free to move and had no restrictions, yet she did not disclose the alleged sexual assault to anyone until filing of the written complaint. Furthermore, in her multiple counselling sessions dated 07.09.2020 (Ex. D/1), 08.10.2020 (Ex. D/2) and 16.10.2020 (Ex. D/3), the victim neither levelled allegations of rape nor named any of the appellants, and even stated that she was pregnant from her husband. Thus, the foundational FIR and her earliest statements do not support the prosecution story, and the subsequent allegations are an afterthought. 9. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the victim did not name the male accused either in the FIR, in her counselling reports, or in her statements under Sections 161 CrPC recorded on 17.10.2020 and 19.10.2020. The entire case against the appellants developed only after the alleged memorandum of co-accused Surabhi, which itself is doubtful as the Investigating Officer (PW-4) admitted that no such memorandum was seized. The Test Identification Parade (TIP) is vitiated and legally inadmissible as it was conducted jointly for all three male accused at the same time (2:00 PM on 21.10.2020), which is contrary to settled law. Moreover, the TIP was held even before the accused were formally arrested, as evident from their arrest memos (Ex. P/36, P/38, P/39), making the entire exercise illegal. Both independent witnesses of the TIP—PW-3 (Imran 8 Khan) and PW-5 (Manoj Thethwar), did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, with PW-5 even stating that he signed under police pressure. The victim’s later statement under Section 164 CrPC naming Alam was recorded only after the TIP, showing clear manipulation and leading questions. The place of incident is also doubtful, though the victim claimed that rape occurred in a jungle, the patwari map (Ex. P/22) prepared on her instructions contains no such jungle, and PW-8- Patwari admitted this in his evidence. These serious inconsistencies render the prosecution version wholly unreliable. 10. Learned counsel further argues that the conduct, background, and previous relationships of the victim, as proved through defence witnesses and even prosecution witnesses, demonstrate that she had suppressed her marital status, prior pregnancy, miscarriage and childbirth. While she denied being married or living with anyone, her father (PW-11) admitted that she had earlier become pregnant and delivered a child. DW-1 Chain Kumar, DW-2 Jaharmati, DW-3 Umin Pando and DW-4 Kotwar Bodhan Ekka have all consistently stated that the victim had been living with different persons at different times, had marital-like relations, and had left their homes of her own accord. PW-7 Shraddha Sharma and PW-6 Sunita Yadav also stated that in counselling, the victim did not allege rape and had stated that she was pregnant from her husband. These aspects demonstrate her tendency to suppress material facts and cast serious doubt upon 9 her credibility. It is therefore submitted that, in view of the unexplained delay in FIR, absence of naming the accused at the earliest, illegal and unreliable TIP, contradictory statements, doubtful place of occurrence, and the overall unreliability of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and the impugned conviction deserves to be set aside 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned, based on a proper and comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence on record, and therefore calls for no interference. It is urged that the victim has consistently supported the prosecution case on all material particulars and her testimony, being trustworthy and credible, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is further argued that the medical evidence, seizure memos, counselling reports, spot map, and other documentary materials duly corroborate the version of the victim. The delay in lodging the FIR, according to the State, has been satisfactorily explained in view of the mental condition and circumstances of the victim, and such delay cannot by itself be a ground to discard the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the contradictions pointed out by the appellants are minor, natural, and insignificant, not affecting the core of the prosecution story. The State Counsel maintains that the test identification 10 proceedings, even if partly disputed, do not erase the substantive evidence available on record, and the defence witnesses have rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court. In these circumstances, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. The first and foremost question before this Court is whether the learned trial Court erred in law and on facts in convicting the appellants despite material contradictions, unreliable identification, and absence of legally admissible evidence establishing their guilt beyond reasonable doubt? 14. To adjudicate this question, it is necessary to first evaluate the statement of the victim, which forms the primary basis of the prosecution case. The victim, while deposing before the Trial Court, stated that after coming to Raigarh she began living with co-accused Surabhi Sidar, who allegedly sent her to different persons where she was subjected to sexual assault. However, when her deposition is tested against the contemporaneous material available on record, serious contradictions and material omissions come to the forefront. 15. At the very outset, it is significant that the victim underwent three 11 counselling sessions—on 07.09.2020 (Ex. D/1), 08.10.2020 (Ex. D/2) and 16.10.2020 (Ex. D/3), each bearing her signatures and those of the counsellors. In all these sessions, the victim did not allege rape, nor did she disclose the names or identity of any of the present appellants, nor did she express any ability to identify the persons who allegedly assaulted her. On 07.09.2020, her own version was that she was pregnant from her husband and had marital disputes. Even in the counselling on 08.10.2020, she remained silent about any sexual assault. On 16.10.2020, although a vague reference to some incident was made, no names, no description, and no identifying features were attributed to any male accused. 16. Her written complaint dated 17.10.2020 (Ex. P/1), which formed the basis of the first FIR (Ex. P/2), also does not name the appellants, nor assert that she had seen or could recognize them. Her statements under Section 161 CrPC (Ex. D/6 and Ex. D/7) likewise contain no disclosure of identity. Thus, from 07.09.2020 until 17.10.2020, spanning more than forty days, the victim had multiple opportunities to narrate the incident but consistently withheld any allegation of rape against the appellants, creating a serious dent in the credibility of her subsequent statements. 17. It is only after the so-called Test Identification Parade dated 21.10.2020, which itself is fraught with procedural irregularities being conducted prior to the arrest of the appellants, and all three 12 accused being paraded jointly at the same time, that the victim, for the first time in her Section 164 CrPC statement recorded on 23.10.2020, introduced the names of the appellants. This belated naming after an illegal and unreliable identification procedure raises grave doubts about the spontaneity and truthfulness of her improved version. 18. Further, the prosecution’s own TIP witnesses, Imran Khan (PW-3) and Manoj Thethwar (PW-5), have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. One of them even stated that he had signed the TIP papers under police pressure. Therefore, the TIP proceedings (Ex. P/6, P/7, P/8) lose all evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon to fix identity, especially when identity was the only link sought to be established against the appellants. 19. In addition to these inconsistencies, the conduct of the victim, as brought out through defence evidence, raises further doubts. The evidence of Shraddha Sharma (PW-07), Sunita Yadav (PW-6), and Budhram Pando (PW-11), farther of the victim contradicts the testimony of the victim regarding her marital status, pregnancy, miscarriage, and earlier living arrangements. Defence witnesses DW-1, DW-2, DW-3, and DW-4 further show that the victim had lived with other men and had suppressed significant facts in her deposition. While the character of the victim is not determinative of her credibility, suppression of material facts directly relating to the circumstances of pregnancy and her movements during the 13 relevant period affects the reliability of her testimony when it is the sole basis for conviction. 20. Another critical inconsistency relates to the place of occurrence. The victim stated that the incident occurred in a jungle, approximately 5 km from Surabhi’s house. However, PW-8 Patwari Anil Kumar, who prepared the site map (Ex. P/22), admitted in cross-examination that no jungle is shown in the map prepared at her instance. Thus, there is no corroboration of the very existence of the alleged place of incident. 21. When such fundamental contradictions exist regarding (i) identity of assailants, (ii) place of occurrence, (iii) delay in FIR, (iv) omissions in early versions, and (v) unreliability of the TIP, the learned trial Court was required to examine the evidence with greater caution. Instead, the Trial Court appears to have overlooked these core infirmities and proceeded to convict the appellants on a testimony that had undergone significant improvements and lacked corroboration. 22. Budhram Pando (PW-11), victim’s father deposed that he does not know accused Surabhi Sidar or the other accused and cannot identify them. He confirmed that the victim is his daughter, belonging to the Pando caste and Scheduled Tribe category. The witness stated that the victim left home without informing the family and had never returned since. He noted that she had previously given birth to a child who later died and subsequently 14 moved to Rampur, where she had another child but later abandoned her. PW-11 provided the victim’s caste certificate (Ex.P-25), Class 3 progress report (Ex.P-26), and the seizure report (Ex.P-27) to the police. While he did not have firsthand knowledge of the events, he admitted that the police informed him of her presence in Raigarh and that she was taken by accused Surabhi Sidar. He denied that the victim had told him about being exploited, taken to Haryana, or becoming pregnant due to the accused. In cross-examination, he acknowledged that the victim was pregnant when she ran away and that he had not filed any police complaint regarding her disappearance. 23. Shraddha Sharma (PW-07) a social worker at Pratigya Vikas Sansthan, deposed that she recognized the victim but did not know or recognize any of the accused, including Surabhi Sidar. The victim was brought to the institution through Child Line, Raipur, in September 2020, where she underwent counseling and a medical examination, which revealed that she was pregnant. During counseling sessions on 06.09.2020, 07.09.2020, 08.10.2020, and 16.10.2020 (Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2), the victim did not disclose any instance of rape, nor did she provide the names or identify the accused, or mention being taken to Haryana. She only referred to wage disputes with the accused Surabhi. PW-7 also confirmed that the organization did not verify the victim’s statements with her family or visit her village and that she could not recall giving statements to the police. The witness 15 emphasized that the victim’s account of sexual assaults, the identities of the accused, and the alleged trafficking were only disclosed later. These omissions and delays, recorded in the contemporaneous counseling reports, demonstrate material contradictions in the prosecution case, undermining the reliability and credibility of the victim’s later allegations. 24. Sunita Yadav (PW-6) the then-superintendent of Pratigya Vikas Sansthan, deposed that she recognized the victim but did not recognize any of the accused, including Surabhi Sidar. In September 2020, the victim was brought to the institute by Child Line after being rescued near Pandri bus stand, Raipur. The victim was medically examined, and it was found that she was pregnant. She disclosed that she had walked from her home in Kapu, Raigarh, to Raigarh city, where she met accused Surabhi Sidar, who took her to her house and made her work, sending her to unknown men, though she did not disclose specific incidents of sexual assault at that time. The victim also stated that accused Surabhi Sidar attempted to take her to Haryana in a truck to sell her, but she escaped near Raipur and was recovered by Child Line. PW-6 confirmed that during multiple counseling sessions, on 6th and 7th September 2020, the victim did not mention being raped, being taken to the forest, or identifying the accused, and only spoke about wage disputes. The witness further stated that the written report submitted by the victim (Ex.P.-20, Ex.P.-21, Ex.D.-1, Ex.D.-3) was prepared by the victim herself and not 16 fabricated by the institute, and the disclosures about sexual assault were made only after medical examination and filing of the police report. 25. These omissions and delays in reporting key facts, coupled with the absence of contemporaneous disclosure of sexual exploitation or identification of the accused during counseling, create material inconsistencies and raise serious doubts regarding the credibility and reliability of the victim’s allegations. 26. Chainkumar (DW-1) deposed that he knows the victim as his wife, whom he married approximately four years ago in the village of Geetkhonta, Panchayat Sonpur. After marriage, they lived together and had a daughter who is now two years old. On the day in question, after returning from the paddy field around noon, he found the victim absent and the child alone. Despite searching for her, he could not locate her and later learned that she was living in another man’s house. He testified that the victim would often run away into the forest, and he had no knowledge of her whereabouts or living conditions. During cross-examination, DW- 1 admitted that he could not recall the exact dates of the marriage or when the victim left his home, nor did he have documents such as Aadhar or ration cards. He confirmed that the victim never came to Raigarh from his house in 2020, directly contradicting the prosecution’s claim that the victim had fled from his home to Raigarh that year. He denied any coaching or instruction from 17 relatives of the accused and maintained the truthfulness of his testimony regarding the victim’s absence from his home and her independent movements. These statements cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s narrative, particularly the claim that the victim fled from her marital home to Raigarh in 2020. 27. Jaharmati (DW-2) deposed that she does not personally know the woman shown in photograph Ex.D.-7 but was able to identify her as the mother of a baby girl she found. The witness stated that the baby’s father is Chainkumar and that when she found the baby, the umbilical cord was still unbroken, indicating the child had been recently born. On searching for the woman, she was located in the house of another man in Line Para, where the mother of the baby girl also had a son. DW-2 further stated that the girl’s mother did not live at home and would wander from forest to forest, often remaining untraceable when searched for. During cross-examination, DW-2 clarified that Chainkumar is her son, and the baby girl is her adopted granddaughter. She confirmed that her in-law’s village is Sonpur and that she did not know the names of her in-law. She also stated that her son was never married to the victim, but the victim had come to their house and had left the child there. DW-2 denied any coaching or influence by the accused, asserting that it is incorrect to claim that the victim never came to their house or left a child there. These statements indicate that the victim had a history of leaving her child and moving independently, which contradicts the 18 prosecution’s assertion regarding the victim’s continuous residence and alleged abduction. 28. Umin Pando (DW-3) deposed that he recognized the woman in photograph Ex.D-7 and stated that he had kept her with him for about a year, considering her as his wife, although they were not formally married. He explained that during the COVID-19 lockdown, the woman would frequently leave the house at night to go into the forest, and despite his efforts to bring her back, she ran away from his home two to four days before the lockdown began. DW-3 stated that he was unaware of the victim’s exact date of birth (04.06.2002) and that she had come to his house voluntarily. He admitted to having physical relations with her and that she bore a child, who unfortunately died a few days after birth. During cross-examination, DW-3 rejected the claim that he did not house the victim or that the woman in question was someone else, affirming that the woman in the photograph is indeed the same person he kept at his home. He emphasized that the victim had moved freely within his village and forest areas, highlighting that her independent movements and voluntary presence at multiple locations contradict allegations of abduction and forced confinement. 29. Bodhan Ekka (DW-4) deposed that he recognizes the victim and has known her since birth in her maternal village, Sonpur. He confirmed that her mother, Mangali Bai Pando, left her father 19 when the victim was 4-5 years old and moved to Rampur with her former husband. The witness stated that the victim lived with her father initially and then began wandering independently from around age 14-15. She entered into relationships with multiple men, including Pavitro Yadav and Chain Kumar, through whom she had children, some of whom died shortly after birth. DW-4 also clarified that the victim voluntarily resided with these men at different times, including at Umin Pando’s house, and that she had multiple partners over the years. He did not have any knowledge of her coming to Raigarh in 2020 or being taken forcibly to any location by the accused, including Surabhi Sidar, nor of any sexual exploitation or coercion by them. The witness further stated that the victim’s movements and relationships were independent, consistent with the pattern of wandering and voluntary residence described in DW-1, DW-2, and DW-3. 30. The defense witnesses, DW-1 to DW-4, along with PW-6 and PW-7, present a coherent narrative that materially contradicts the prosecution’s case and undermines the claim of abduction or sexual exploitation by the accused. DW-1 deposed that the victim was his legally wedded wife, and after leaving his house, she lived independently, moving between different men’s residences, including those of Chain Kumar and Umin Pando, with whom she had children, some of whom died shortly after birth. DW-2 and DW-3 confirmed that the victim had voluntarily resided with multiple men and had a pattern of wandering independently 20 during the period in question, including during the COVID-19 lockdown. DW-4 further corroborated that the victim’s movements, including her stay in Sonpur, Rampur, and other villages, were voluntary and consistent with her prior behavior, he had no knowledge of her being forcibly taken to Raigarh or sexually exploited by any accused, including Surabhi Sidar. PW-6 and PW-7, who were involved in counseling and rehabilitating the victim at Pratigya Vikas Sansthan, stated that during the initial counseling sessions, the victim did not disclose any rape or abduction, and the information regarding alleged sexual exploitation and abduction surfaced only after medical examination and later police reporting. The evidence shows delays in disclosure, absence of contemporaneous reporting, and a history of voluntary movements and relationships of the victim, which contradict the prosecution’s narrative of coercion. Taken together, these testimonies reveal substantial inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, demonstrate the absence of corroborative evidence of abduction or rape. 31. Lastly, to base the conviction of the appellants for offence in question, the statement of the victim (PW-01) should be of “sterling quality”. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the statement of victim (PW-01) inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and whether it is of sterling quality? 32. (14) As this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment 21 of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State of (NCT of Delhi) 1 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that who can be said to be a “sterling witness” and which has been followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar 2 . Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) have held in paragraph No.22 as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be 1 (2012) 8 SCC 21 2 (2020) 3 SCC 443 22 akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 33. Coming back to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-quoted judgments, it is quite vivid that the statement of the victim (PW-01) cannot be regarded as a “sterling witness” statement. The victim’s testimony is fraught with material contradictions, omissions, and delays, which directly affect the credibility of her allegations. From the initial counseling sessions (Ex.D-1, Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3) until the filing of her written complaint (Ex.P-1) and subsequent Section 164 CrPC statement, there is a clear pattern of inconsistent and improved versions, particularly regarding the identity of the accused, the place of occurrence, and the circumstances of the alleged crime. 34. Further, the TIP proceedings, which purportedly established the identity of the accused, are unreliable and rendered practically 23 valueless by the hostility of prosecution witnesses PW-3 and PW- 5, who disavowed their prior statements. Coupled with this, the defense evidence (DW-1 to DW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-11) establishes that the victim had voluntarily moved between different residences, lived with other men, and delayed disclosure of any alleged sexual assault. These facts create serious doubts regarding the reliability of the core allegations upon which the conviction was based. 35. The absence of any corroboration from independent or contemporaneous evidence, be it regarding identity, place of occurrence, or abduction further weakens the prosecution case. Even the counseling and medical records indicate that disclosures about sexual assault were made only after the medical examination, and the victim herself did not initially allege rape, coercion, or trafficking. The cumulative effect of these inconsistencies, delayed reporting, and voluntary movements of the victim is such that the prosecution has manifestly failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 36. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the assessment of a “sterling witness,” it is evident that PW-01’s testimony does not meet the required standard. Her statements are neither unassailable nor consistent, there is untruthfulness regarding material facts, and the account lacks correlation with other evidentiary material on record. The learned trial Court, therefore, erred both in law and in fact by relying solely on the 24 victim’s uncorroborated testimony to convict the appellants, disregarding the host of contradictions and the credible defense evidence that materially negates the prosecution’s narrative. 37. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court, in convicting the appellants, committed grave error in relying on the sole testimony of victim. It also overlooked the vital contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence. 38. It is trite law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and when two views are possible, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the benefit must always go to the accused. Applying this principle, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellants are entitled to acquittal. 39. In the result, the appeals stands allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated 24.11.2022, is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. 40. It is stated that appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 41. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of BNSS), appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with two 25 reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 42. The trial Court record alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet