“The Keshav Principle” – Re-calibrating the ‘Sterling Witness’ Test in Rape Prosecutions

1. Introduction

Case: Keshav v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 604, Supreme Court of India, 30 April 2025)

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice K. Vinod Chandran (concurred by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia), reversed concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Bombay High Court and acquitted two men who had been convicted of abduction and rape. The Court re-emphasised that:

While the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can ground a conviction, it must possess “sterling quality”.
Inconsistencies, unexplained gaps, and lack of investigative corroboration dilute that quality and trigger the constitutional safeguard of reasonable doubt.

This commentary dissects the judgment, the authorities relied on, the legal reasoning adopted, and the wider ramifications for criminal jurisprudence on sexual-offence trials.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Appeal allowed; the appellants (A1 & A2) were acquitted. Convictions and sentences by the Trial Court and High Court were set aside.
The Court found the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 (victims) riddled with contradictions: circumstances surrounding the alleged abduction, whereabouts of the two-year-old child, their 15-day stay in Parbhani, and lack of identification by an independent witness (PW-4).
Medical evidence (PW-9) revealed no physical signs consistent with repeated forceful sexual intercourse.
Absence of corroborative evidence—no family members or lodgers from Parbhani examined, no investigation into jewellery allegedly sold—amplified the doubt.
The Court held that the testimony fell short of the “sterling quality” necessary when it stands alone.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Established that conviction for rape can rest solely on credible prosecutrix testimony; corroboration is not a sine qua non.
Raju v. State of M.P. (2008) 15 SCC 133
Cautioned courts to be vigilant against false rape allegations; an injured witness’s statement is not automatically immune from scrutiny.

The Court in Keshav blends the above holdings and forges what may be termed the “Keshav Principle”: When the prosecutrix’s evidence is internally inconsistent or externally unsupported on material particulars, it ceases to be of sterling quality; courts must then insist on corroboration or grant benefit of doubt.

B. Legal Reasoning

Reliability over Formal Rules: The Court did not dispute that sole testimony could suffice; rather it evaluated whether the testimony here passed the reliability threshold. Internal contradictions and conduct inconsistent with natural human behaviour (e.g., not contacting relatives or police for 15 days) undermined credibility.
Reasonable Doubt Standard: Applying Section 101 of the Evidence Act read with Article 21’s due-process dimension, the Bench held that lingering doubts concerning vital facets of the prosecution story must tilt the scale toward acquittal.
Medical Evidence as Negative Corroboration: Although lack of injuries is not decisive, the Court used PW-9’s opinion to underscore how every other pillar of corroboration was missing.
Diligence of Investigation: The Court criticised the police for not examining the mother-in-law, the husbands, lodge-owners, or alleged purchasers of jewellery. Such investigative lacunae fed into the reasonable-doubt matrix.

C. Likely Impact

Raised Evidentiary Bar in Sole-Testimony Cases: Trial courts will likely subject victim testimony to more rigorous internal-consistency analysis before branding it “sterling”.
Investigative Obligations: Police will be expected to actively seek corroborative leads (medical, electronic, ocular, forensic) to buffer sole-testimony prosecutions.
Revision of Charge-Framing Strategy: Prosecutors may hesitate to include multiple accused unless independent evidence links each to the crime, wary of global acquittal.
Balance of Rights: The judgment reinforces protection against wrongful conviction, underscoring that societal outrage over sexual crimes cannot eclipse fair-trial rights.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Sterling Quality” Witness: A witness whose testimony is so cogent, consistent, and inherently credible that it needs no corroboration.
Reasonable Doubt: Not a mere possibility of innocence, but a real, substantial uncertainty that would make a prudent person hesitate before acting in a matter of importance.
Test Identification Parade (TIP): A pre-trial process where witnesses are asked to identify suspects. Helps test the reliability of in-court identifications.
Negative Corroboration: Where the absence of expected corroborative evidence (e.g., injuries, call records) weakens the prosecution—not because its presence is mandatory, but because its absence is unexplained.

5. Conclusion

Keshav v. State of Maharashtra neither dilutes the victim-centric approach nor resurrects the archaic “corroboration rule”. Instead, it crystallises a middle path—the “Keshav Principle”—that puts the spotlight on the quality of sole testimony and the diligence of accompanying investigation. The decision will serve as both a caution to prosecuting agencies to plug evidentiary gaps and a reassurance that constitutional fairness remains paramount even in emotionally charged offences.

Going forward, courts are likely to reference Keshav whenever confronted with rape prosecutions resting solely on witness testimony, ensuring that the “sterling witness” standard is applied with intellectual rigour rather than lip service.