Contradictions in Prosecutrix's Statement

Navigating Contradictions in the Testimony of a Prosecutrix: A Legal Analysis under Indian Law

Introduction

The testimony of a prosecutrix in cases of sexual offences forms the bedrock of the prosecution's case in India. Given the nature of such crimes, often committed in privacy, the prosecutrix is frequently the sole eyewitness. Consequently, her statement is subjected to intense scrutiny. Contradictions, perceived or actual, in her various statements – be it to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), before a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., or during her deposition in court – often become a focal point of the defence. This article aims to provide a comprehensive, scholarly analysis of how Indian courts evaluate and interpret contradictions in the statement of a prosecutrix, drawing upon statutory provisions and significant judicial pronouncements.

The central inquiry revolves around distinguishing between minor discrepancies natural to human memory and recall, especially under traumatic circumstances, and material contradictions that fatally undermine the credibility of the witness and the veracity of the prosecution's narrative. The judiciary's approach is guided by principles of prudence, sensitivity, and the overarching goal of ensuring justice for both the victim and the accused.

The Evidentiary Value of a Prosecutrix's Testimony in India

The Indian legal system accords significant weight to the testimony of a victim of a sexual offence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if found to be credible and reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction without the necessity of corroboration. She is not treated as an accomplice but rather as an injured witness whose evidence is entitled to great respect.

In State Of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh And Others (1996 SCC 2 384), the Supreme Court emphasized that the testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases is as credible as that of an injured witness and should be treated with inherent trust unless disproven by compelling evidence. The Court further observed that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity but causes serious psychological and physical harm, and courts must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. This sentiment was echoed in Raju And Others v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2008 SCC 15 133), where the Court reiterated that if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration in material particulars.

The principle that corroboration is not an absolute necessity was laid down in early cases like Rameshwar v. The State Of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54), cited in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State Of Gujarat (1983 SCC 3 217). The Bharwada Bhoginbhai case further reasoned that the Indian societal context, with its inherent stigma against rape victims, makes false accusations rare, thus justifying reliance on the prosecutrix's testimony. This perspective was reaffirmed in State Of Rajasthan v. N.K The Accused (2000 SCC 5 30) and State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal (2011 SCC 2 550), where the Supreme Court emphasized the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, especially when supported by corroborative evidence and consistent accounts.

The judiciary has consistently maintained that corroboration is a rule of prudence, not a requirement of law (*State Of H.P v. Asha Ram (2005 SCC 13 766)*; *Jafar Amir Khan v. State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2014)* citing *Narender Kumar v. State (Nct Of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 171)*; *Shankar & Another (S) v. State Of Haryana (S) (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2015)*). As stated in *Vijay Alias Chinee v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2010 SCC 8 191)*, if a prosecutrix's testimony is credible, it is sufficient for conviction. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with that of an injured witness and is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding (*Shankar & Another (S) v. State Of Haryana (S) (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2015)*).

Understanding and Classifying Contradictions

Contradictions in a witness's statement refer to inconsistencies between different parts of their testimony or between their testimony and other evidence or previous statements. Indian courts differentiate between various types of contradictions based on their nature and impact on the core narrative of the prosecution.

Minor or Insignificant Discrepancies

Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies are often considered natural and are generally overlooked if the core testimony of the prosecutrix remains consistent and inspires confidence. Human memory is not infallible, and variations in recounting details, especially of traumatic events, are expected. The Supreme Court in State Of H.P v. Lekh Raj And Another (2000 SCC 1 247) distinguished between minor variations and material contradictions, noting that minor discrepancies do not necessarily undermine overall credibility if the essence of the testimony remains intact. This view is consistently upheld, as seen in Raju And Others v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2008 SCC 15 133), which stated that courts should not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Similar observations were made in Vijay Alias Chinee v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2010 SCC 8 191), Jafar Amir Khan v. State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2014), and Dashrath v. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2018).

The Allahabad High Court in *Dashrath v. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2018)*, quoting the Supreme Court, emphasized that "Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case." The Bombay High Court in *Emperor v. Bankatram Lachiram (Bombay High Court, 1904)* cautioned that one must approach a case resting merely on supposed contradictions with great caution, especially where a number of years intervene between statements, or where there might be ulterior motives behind the prosecution.

Material or Major Contradictions

Material contradictions are those that go to the root of the matter, affect the core of the prosecution's story, and create serious doubts about the truthfulness of the witness or the occurrence of the alleged incident. Such contradictions can significantly impair the credibility of the prosecutrix. As observed in *State Of H.P v. Lekh Raj And Another (2000 SCC 1 247)*, material discrepancies are significant inconsistencies that undermine the integrity of the account. If the statement of the prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies, and deliberate improvements on material points, no reliance can be placed thereon, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt (*Shiv Kumar v. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2015)* citing *Narendra Kumar Versus State (NCT OF DELHI) (2012) 7 SCC 171)*).

Judicial Approach to Evaluating Contradictions

Courts adopt a holistic and contextual approach when evaluating contradictions in a prosecutrix's testimony. The entire evidence is weighed, and the "probabilities factor" is considered (*Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State Of Gujarat (1983 SCC 3 217)*).

Contextual Understanding

The psychological trauma experienced by victims of sexual assault is a crucial factor. Courts recognize that victims may not be able to recall events with perfect precision or may exhibit inconsistencies due to trauma (*State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh And Others (1996 SCC 2 384)*; *State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal (2011 SCC 2 550)*). Societal stigma and pressures can also influence how and when a victim reports an offence and the details she provides (*Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai*; *State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal*). Delays in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), if properly explained by factors such as fear, shame, or societal pressure, are often condoned (*State Of Rajasthan v. N.K The Accused (2000 SCC 5 30)*; *State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal*; *Shankar & Another (S) v. State Of Haryana (S) (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2015)*).

Impact on Credibility

When contradictions are substantial and unexplained, they can render the testimony unreliable. In *Krishan Kumar Malik v. State Of Haryana (2011 SCC 7 130)*, the Supreme Court found the prosecutrix's story lopsided and untrustworthy due to various serious contradictions, including her failure to identify the kothi where the alleged rape occurred and discrepancies in the description of the accused. The Delhi High Court in *Virender v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2009)* considered contradictions regarding the very place of occurrence and the manner of rescue as major contradictions. Similarly, in *Atender Yadav v. State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2013)*, contradictions regarding the timeline of events and false deposition about school attendance (exposed by records) were deemed vital.

The Chhattisgarh High Court in *BHARAT SINGH GOND AND OTHERS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Chhattisgarh High Court, 2025)* found the prosecutrix's testimony unreliable due to material contradictions and her admission that she would not have filed the report if a certain sum of money was paid. Confrontation with previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a common method to highlight contradictions (*Narender Kumar v. State(N.C.T.Of Delhi) (Supreme Court Of India, 2012)*; *Virender v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2009)*). In *Ashish Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. (Allahabad High Court, 2024)*, contradictions between the FIR (no rape allegation against applicant) and subsequent statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. (rape alleged) were noted as a factor for consideration.

However, the onus of proof always remains on the prosecution to establish each ingredient of the offence. The prosecution's case must stand on its own legs and cannot derive strength from the weaknesses of the defence (*GANGA RAM v. STATE OF RAJ ASTHAN THROUGH PP (Rajasthan High Court, 2017)*). While the prosecutrix's evidence must be given predominant consideration, it cannot be accepted if the story is improbable and belies logic (*GANGA RAM v. STATE OF RAJ ASTHAN THROUGH PP (Rajasthan High Court, 2017)*, citing *Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi)*).

Specific Instances and Factors Considered by Courts

Courts examine various specific aspects when assessing contradictions:

  • Place and Manner of Offence: Contradictions regarding the place of occurrence or the manner in which the prosecutrix was allegedly saved can be considered major (*Virender v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2009)*).
  • Consistency with Other Evidence: Discrepancies between the prosecutrix's statement and the testimony of other witnesses or documentary evidence can be crucial. For instance, in *Atender Yadav v. State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2013)*, the prosecutrix's deposition about school attendance was contradicted by school records. In *State Of H.P v. Prithi Chand (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2010)*, contradictions among witnesses regarding the alleged illicit relationship (motive) and demand for dowry weakened the prosecution case.
  • Medical Evidence: The absence of physical injuries is not always conclusive proof against rape, as injuries may not always be present or detectable (*State Of Rajasthan v. N.K The Accused (2000 SCC 5 30)*; *State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal (2011 SCC 2 550)*). However, medical evidence can sometimes highlight inconsistencies. In *Krishan Kumar Malik v. State Of Haryana (2011 SCC 7 130)*, medical evidence showing no significant injuries and the possibility of the prosecutrix being habitual to sexual intercourse, coupled with other contradictions, led to acquittal. It is established that even if a prosecutrix is habituated to sexual intercourse, it does not give anyone the right to rape her, nor does it automatically discredit her testimony; however, such evidence may be considered in the overall assessment (*Dharmarajan v. State Of Kerala, Rep. By Public Prosecutor (Kerala High Court, 2014)* citing *Krishankumar Malik*; *Shankar & Another (S) v. State Of Haryana (S) (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2015)*).
  • Conduct of the Prosecutrix: While failure to raise an alarm is not always fatal, especially given the context of threat or shock, it can be a factor considered by courts (*Krishan Kumar Malik v. State Of Haryana (2011 SCC 7 130)*). A statement by the prosecutrix indicating willingness to drop charges for monetary compensation can severely damage her credibility (*BHARAT SINGH GOND AND OTHERS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Chhattisgarh High Court, 2025)*).
  • Identification: Failure to identify the place of the incident or the accused (if previously unknown and no identification parade was held or was flawed) can be a significant lacuna (*Krishan Kumar Malik v. State Of Haryana (2011 SCC 7 130)*).

The Role of Corroboration in Light of Contradictions

While the law does not mandate corroboration for a prosecutrix's testimony, the presence of significant and unexplained contradictions may lead courts, as a matter of prudence, to seek some form of corroboration to ensure that the testimony is reliable. The Supreme Court in *Narender Kumar v. State(N.C.T.Of Delhi) (Supreme Court Of India, 2012)* stated that corroboration would be required if there are compelling reasons that necessitate it. This was reiterated in *Jafar Amir Khan v. State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2014)*. If the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony due to contradictions, it may look for evidence that lends assurance, short of corroboration required for an accomplice (*Raju And Others v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2008 SCC 15 133)*; *Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu v. State (Nct Of Delhi) (2012 SCC 8 21)*).

In *Krishan Kumar Malik v. State Of Haryana (2011 SCC 7 130)*, the lack of corroboration for a prosecutrix's testimony riddled with contradictions was a key factor in the acquittal. The Allahabad High Court in *Shiv Kumar v. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2015)* affirmed that if the prosecutrix's statement suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies, reliance cannot be placed on it without corroboration, and the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Appellate Review of Acquittals Based on Contradictions

Appellate courts often review decisions where acquittals are based on contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony. The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, overturned High Court acquittals if it found that the assessment of contradictions was flawed, overly technical, or insensitive to the realities faced by victims of sexual assault (*State Of Rajasthan v. N.K The Accused (2000 SCC 5 30)*; *State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal (2011 SCC 2 550)*; *State Of H.P v. Asha Ram (2005 SCC 13 766)*). In *State Of H.P v. Asha Ram*, the Supreme Court expressed dismay at how the High Court casually dealt with a grave offence, overlooking prosecution evidence that inspired confidence and merited acceptance, and acquitting the accused on what it termed "perverse finding against all canons of justice."

However, appellate courts are generally cautious about interfering with acquittals. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in *STATE OF J AND K THROUGH DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL v. QASIM KHAN (Jammu and Kashmir High Court, 2022)* reiterated that an appellate court will not ordinarily set aside an acquittal unless convinced that the Trial Court overlooked vital aspects, considered irrelevant facts, or its reasoning was perverse. The significance and materiality of contradictions are key to this assessment.

Conclusion

The evaluation of contradictions in a prosecutrix's statement under Indian law is a nuanced and complex process. The judiciary endeavors to balance the paramount importance of the victim's testimony in sexual offence cases with the fundamental principles of criminal justice that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. While minor discrepancies are often viewed as natural human errors, especially in the recounting of traumatic events, material contradictions that strike at the core of the prosecution's narrative can be fatal to its case.

Indian courts approach such testimonies with sensitivity, considering the socio-psychological context of the victim. However, the prosecutrix's statement, like any other evidence, must ultimately inspire confidence and be credible. The judicial trend indicates a careful sifting of evidence, distinguishing between genuine inconsistencies and those that are either trivial or deliberately introduced to falsely implicate an accused. The quest remains to ensure that justice is delivered, upholding the dignity of the victim while safeguarding the rights of the accused against wrongful conviction based on unreliable or fundamentally flawed testimony.