Supreme Court Acquits Man of Rape Conviction After Seventeen Years, Holds a Witness's Testimony Cannot Be Believed for One Charge and Disbelieved for Another

1 day ago

5 min read

Updated: 6 hours ago

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man of a rape conviction that had stood for fourteen years, seventeen years after the incident itself, holding that a trial court cannot disbelieve a witness's account for one charge and then accept the very same account to convict on another. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar found the prosecutrix's testimony riddled with contradictions and held that it could not be selectively credited depending on which charge was being decided.

The Case at a Glance

Case: Paramjit Singh Bedi vs State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 INSC 1054 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Challenged: Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated September 12, 2013, affirming a 2012 Sessions Court conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and a ten year sentence
Order dated: September 25, 2026

Background: One FIR, Two Charges, and Two Different Findings on the Same Witness

According to the prosecution, the complainant left her house in Ludhiana on the evening of June 19, 2009 to buy groceries and was persuaded by the appellant to accompany him to meet his daughter. She travelled with him by car, stayed at a flat in Ludhiana for two days, then travelled by scooter to Malerkotla, where she alleged she was confined and assaulted. She returned to Ludhiana with the appellant six days after leaving home, where her father and the police intercepted them. An FIR was registered under Sections 363, 366A, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and the police eventually filed a charge-sheet under Sections 366 and 376.

At trial, the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, took a split view. He acquitted the appellant of the kidnapping charge under Section 366, finding that the complainant, whom he held to be a major, had accompanied the appellant of her own free will. Yet, relying on the same witness's testimony, he convicted the appellant under Section 376 and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed both the conviction and the sentence in 2013. The Supreme Court granted leave and released the appellant on bail in 2015, by which time he had already served roughly six years in custody.

A Contradiction the Trial Court Explained Away

The Supreme Court zeroed in on how the Sessions Judge himself had reconciled acquitting the appellant on one charge while convicting him on another, based on the same witness.

Some daring women also choose to travel to far off places in the company of men. Agreeing to accompany a man and even agreeing to spending a night with him, yet not consenting to have sex with him, is possible.

The Court did not accept this reasoning, and was critical of the characterisation itself.

We are afraid the learned Sessions Judge has gone completely wrong while justifying the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC. The High Court also fell in error in accepting such convoluted logic.

The Testimony Itself Did Not Hold Together

Independent of the internal inconsistency between the two charges, the Court examined the complainant's evidence on its own terms and found it unreliable. She gave conflicting accounts of how she and the appellant travelled back to Ludhiana, by car in her examination-in-chief, by train in cross-examination, and, despite passing through busy streets, intersections, and a scooter ride through the city, she never raised an alarm or attempted to get away, a fact the trial court itself had relied on to disbelieve her account of the kidnapping.

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. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of unimpeachable character, it has to be accepted in its entirety.

The Court also addressed the High Court's reliance on the presumption of non-consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, holding that this presumption operates once a credible foundation is laid, and cannot substitute for testimony that is otherwise contradictory and unconvincing.

The Decision

The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained on the basis of surmises or a judge's own value judgment in place of hard evidence, set aside both the Sessions Court and High Court judgments, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal appeal was allowed, seventeen years after the FIR was first registered.

Why This Matters for Criminal Law Practice

This case is a clean illustration of a specific defence argument that is easy to overlook: when a prosecution case rests on a single witness facing multiple charges arising from the same set of facts, an appellate court can be shown that the trial court's own findings on one charge are inconsistent with its findings on another. A conviction cannot be propped up by crediting a witness's account only where it is convenient and disregarding the same account where it is not, and a judge's personal view of how a witness ought to have behaved cannot substitute for a reasoned assessment of the evidence actually on record.

Building the skill to spot and argue exactly this kind of internal inconsistency across connected charges is covered under the Criminal Law Drafting module of ILW's Advanced Legal Drafting course, for law students and practising lawyers building a criminal appellate practice.

For more Supreme Court case breakdowns like this one, join ILW's WhatsApp channel for updates.

Keywords

Consistency of witness testimony criminal law, Section 114A Evidence Act presumption, rape conviction sole testimony, appreciation of prosecutrix evidence, criminal law drafting course

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a court believe a witness's testimony for one charge and disbelieve the same testimony for another charge in the same case?

No. The Supreme Court held that if a witness's evidence is of unimpeachable character, it must be accepted in its entirety, and a court cannot selectively reject part of it to acquit on one charge while accepting the very same account to convict on a connected charge.

What is the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, and can it override unreliable testimony?

Section 114A allows a court to presume the absence of consent once a woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, in certain categories of sexual offence cases. The Supreme Court clarified that this presumption cannot substitute for, or rescue, testimony that is otherwise contradictory and does not inspire confidence on its own.

Can a rape conviction rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix?

Yes, Indian law permits a conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but only where that testimony is of unimpeachable character and inspires the confidence of the court. Where the account is contradictory or unconvincing, a conviction cannot be sustained merely on the strength of the charge being a serious one.

What happened to the accused during the seventeen years this case was pending?

He was convicted and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment in 2012, and served roughly six years in custody before the Supreme Court granted him bail in 2015 while his appeal remained pending. The Supreme Court has now acquitted him, eleven years after that bail order.

What is the case citation and final outcome?

The case is Paramjit Singh Bedi vs State of Punjab, reported as 2026 INSC 1054. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the appellant, allowing the criminal appeal.