New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acquitted a man in a rape case, holding that a court cannot partially reject a girl’s testimony on one charge and accept it on another, while also objecting to the trial judge’s use o…

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acquitted a man in a rape case, holding that a court cannot partially reject a girl’s testimony on one charge and accept it on another, while also objecting to the trial judge’s use of personal value judgment to justify the conviction.A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar observed that while an accused can be convicted of rape on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, that statement must inspire the confidence of the court. “There cannot be partial rejection of the evidence of the prosecutrix for the purpose of Section 366 IPC and partial acceptance of the very same statement for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 376 IPC,” the court said.The appellant, Paramjit Singh Bedi, had challenged a September 12, 2013 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that upheld his conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by the sessions court on June 1, 2012 under Section 376 of the IPC.Supreme Court seeks Goa govt’s response on Tarun Tejpal’s plea against conviction in 2013 rape caseAccording to the prosecution, the accused took the girl in his car on June 19, 2006 on the pretext of meeting his daughter, who was her friend. He allegedly took her to a flat in Ludhiana and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. He brought her back on June 25, 2006.The sessions court acquitted him under Section 366 IPC but convicted him under Section 376. The High Court dismissed his appeal.In its judgment on September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court noted several inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s evidence. In cross-examination she claimed she raised a hue and cry in a room at Malerkotla but no one heard her. She also admitted the accused was a neighbour living on rent in a relative’s house and that a rent dispute was pending. Medical examination showed no external marks of injury. No hue and cry was raised during the entire return journey, which the court found unbelievable.The sessions judge had disbelieved her version for the kidnapping charge, accepting that as a major she had gone with the accused willingly. Yet he convicted the appellant for rape, remarking that “some daring women also choose to travel to far off places in the company of men” and that agreeing to accompany a man and spend a night with him does not necessarily mean consent to sex.The apex court said the sessions judge had “gone completely wrong” in justifying the conviction this way. The High Court also erred in accepting the “convoluted logic” and relying on the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act.While the example that a woman may travel far with a man and even spend a night with him without consenting to sex “may be true”, the context in this case was different, the bench noted. The prosecutrix had absented herself from home for five-six days, travelled voluntarily with the accused and stayed with him.’Offending’: Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of Patna HC’s observations in ‘attempt to rape’ case“The version of the prosecutrix is not believable at all,” the court held, adding yer denial of consent had to be viewed in the overall context of her testimony, which was a “bundle of contradictions”.The bench opined while the conduct of the appellant may be immoral and unethical, that by itself would not justify a conviction under Section 376 IPC without any clinching evidence. “Such a charge must be proved on the basis of hard evidence and not on the basis of the surmises and conjectures based on the value judgment of the presiding judge. Immorality of an act sans credible evidence cannot justify a conviction,” the bench said.The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the sessions court and the High Court and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 IPC.

Source: Deccan Herald