PART ACCEPTANCE OR PART REJECTION OF THE PROSECUTRIX’S STATEMENT IS NOT ALLOWED
INTRODUCTION
In Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1054, the Supreme Court of India considered an important question about the way evidence of a Prosecutrix should be looked at in a criminal case. The Judgment was delivered on 25 September 2026 by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar. The Appeal arose from the conviction of the Appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court eventually set aside the conviction.
The main point which comes out from the Judgment is that a court cannot accept one part of the statement of a Prosecutrix and reject another part of the same statement, depending upon which charge is being considered.
BRIEF FACTS
The case goes back to June 2009. The Prosecutrix knew the Appellant because she was friendly with his daughter. On 19 June 2009, she had gone out to purchase some household articles. According to her, the Appellant met her on the way and told her that he wanted her to meet his daughter. She therefore went with him in his car to LIG Flats in Ludhiana.
The Prosecution alleged that the Appellant kept her there for two days and later took her to Malerkotla on a scooter. She was allegedly kept in a room in an abandoned factory and was sexually assaulted. On 25 June 2009, the Appellant and the Prosecutrix returned to Ludhiana, where they were intercepted by the police and the Prosecutrix’s Father. An FIR was then registered.
The Sessions Court did not accept the Prosecution case under Section 366 IPC. It held that the Prosecution had not been able to prove that the Prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. It also found the allegation of kidnapping or abduction doubtful. The Appellant was therefore acquitted of that charge.
However, on the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC, the same court accepted the Prosecution version and convicted the Appellant. He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana later upheld the conviction.
ISSUES
The important question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction for rape could be maintained when the Trial Court had already found the Prosecution version doubtful while dealing with the charge under Section 366 IPC.
The Court also had to examine the contradictions in the statement of the Prosecutrix and whether the medical evidence was sufficient to support the allegation of rape.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court went through the evidence of the Prosecutrix in some detail.
While dealing with the charge under Section 366 IPC, the Trial Court had noticed that the Prosecutrix travelled with the Appellant through crowded areas and brightly lit intersections. She did not raise an alarm or try to get off the scooter. The Court also found that her age had not been proved to be below 18 years. On these grounds, the Appellant was given the benefit of doubt on the charge of kidnapping or abduction.
The difficulty arose when the Trial Court dealt with the charge of rape. Although it had not accepted the Prosecutrix’s version for the purpose of Section 366 IPC, it relied on the same evidence to hold that the Appellant had raped her. The Supreme Court found this approach to be unsustainable.
The Court then looked at the testimony of the Prosecutrix itself. There were differences in her statements about the manner in which she and the Appellant travelled from Malerkotla to Ludhiana. In her Examination-in-Chief, she stated that they returned by car. In cross-examination, she stated that they travelled by train. She also admitted that the journey took place through crowded places, but she did not raise an alarm or ask anyone for help.
There were other circumstances which the Court also took into account. The medical examination did not show any external injury or injury to the private parts of the Prosecutrix. The Ossification Test also did not conclusively establish the age claimed by the Prosecution.
The Court also considered the medical finding regarding spermatozoa. It held that the mere presence of spermatozoa could not, by itself, establish that rape had been committed. The medical finding had to be considered along with the other evidence in the case.
The most important part of the Judgment is the Court’s observation about the evidence of the Prosecutrix. There is no doubt that a conviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the Prosecutrix. But that testimony must be such that the Court can rely upon it with confidence.
What the Court did not accept was a selective approach to the same evidence. If a statement is found unreliable on one part of the case, the Court cannot simply use that very statement for another charge without properly explaining why it should be believed in that respect.
The Supreme Court clearly stated that there cannot be “part acceptance and part rejection” of the statement of the Prosecutrix. The evidence has to be considered as a whole.
The Court also cautioned against allowing personal views or assumptions to take the place of evidence. The Court noted that even if the conduct of the Appellant appeared immoral or improper, that alone could not be the basis for a conviction under Section 376 IPC. A criminal conviction must rest on convincing evidence.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court finally set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court. The Appellant was cleared of the charge under Section 376 IPC.
The Judgment brings out a basic rule in criminal law: a witness’s evidence cannot be divided into convenient parts merely to support a particular conclusion. The Court has to look at the evidence as a whole and decide whether it is reliable. Where there are serious contradictions and the surrounding evidence does not support the prosecution case, a conviction cannot be based on selective acceptance of testimony.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Editor’s Comment
The Judgment brings out a basic rule in criminal law: a witness’s evidence cannot be divided into convenient parts merely to support a particular conclusion. The Court has to look at the evidence as a whole and decide whether it is reliable. Where there are serious contradictions and the surrounding evidence does not support the prosecution case, a conviction cannot be based on selective acceptance of testimony.
Sushila Ram
Advocate and Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Watch our latest video