Keshav vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 604 - Rape Case Acquittal
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it can be relied on and can also be the sole ground for conviction. However, if it is difficult to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, then the Court has to look for evidence to lend assurance to her testimony which would be short of corroboration required in the case. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case- while rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation, a false allegation of rape also can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The Court should be equally careful in protecting the accused from a false implication. While applying the broad principle that an injured witness, whose presence cannot be doubted, as she would ordinarily not lie, still there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishments - Referred to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 and finding. Raju v. State of M.P (2008) 15 SCC 133 [Context: Supreme Court acquitted the accused by setting aside concurrent conviction and observed: The story put up by the prosecution are full of holes and it raises a grave suspicion in our minds which qualifies as reasonable doubt. ]
"The story put up by prosecution are full of holes"
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) May 3, 2025
Supreme Court acquits accused in a 25 year old Rape Case by setting aside concurrent conviction by Trial Court and High Court. https://t.co/6YWu0rnzXp pic.twitter.com/U1lDzkGdk5