Punjab and Haryana HC Acquits Rape Accused After Prosecutrix Found Using Deceased Woman’s Identity

Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a 2002 kidnapping and rape case, holding that the prosecution case collapsed after the prosecutrix was found to have assumed the identity of a deceased woman, rendering her testimony wholly unreliable.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal, while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on 23.03.2006, held that the statement of a prosecutrix who has lied about her identity cannot be accepted at face value.

According to the prosecution, the woman alleged that in November 2002, she was forcibly abducted, taken to multiple locations, and repeatedly raped by the accused and others over several days. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 366 (kidnapping), Section 376 (rape), and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to multiple terms of rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently, based primarily on the testimony of the prosecutrix. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix, medical evidence, and statements of supporting witnesses.

The High Court identified a fundamental flaw in the prosecution case—the failure to prove the identity of the prosecutrix. The Court found that the prosecutrix claimed to be the wife of a particular man; however, documentary evidence, including a death certificate, established that the real wife bearing that name had died in 1990. Evidence also showed that the husband had remarried, and his second wife was alive during the relevant period.

The Court held that it had become crystal clear that the prosecutrix was not the person she claimed to be, and that her entire version regarding her identity was false.

Observing that fraud and justice never dwell together, the Court noted that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings. It held that the prosecutrix, who had assumed the identity of a deceased person, could not be believed in her account of repeated rape and gang rape by the accused. The Court further observed that her conduct, tainted with fraud and deception, struck at the credibility of her version and dealt a serious blow to the prosecution case. It noted that the prosecutrix had resorted to falsehood and misrepresentation to misuse court proceedings, and that her attempt to pollute the stream of justice with tainted hands could not be countenanced by the Court.

Apart from the identity issue, the Court also found the prosecutrix’s version improbable and inconsistent. It noted that she had allegedly travelled across multiple locations over ten to twelve days without raising any alarm or attempting to escape. Medical evidence revealed no external injuries and no spermatozoa were detected. The Court held that her testimony did not meet the standard of a “sterling witness” required in rape cases.

The Court found merit in the defence argument that the case may have been a counterblast to prior litigation involving the accused’s family. It also noted that the trial court had acquitted co-accused on similar grounds of doubt, making the conviction of the appellant inconsistent with those findings.

While acknowledging that a conviction in rape cases can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court clarified that such testimony must be credible, consistent, and trustworthy. Finding that the testimony in the present case met none of these standards, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.

Case Details:

• Case Title: XX v. YY
• Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
• Judge: Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal
• Date of Order: 02.05.2026
• Relevant Provisions: Sections 366, 376, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code

Appearances:

• For the Appellant: Ms. Manveen Peruman, Advocate, for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate
• For the State of Punjab: Mr. Akash Yadav, Additional Advocate General