In Brief
A doctor in Gujarat was convicted of rape under Section 376(2)(d) IPC and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment after his appeal was dismissed and the State's appeal for enhancement was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him, holding that the prosecutrix and her husband—the key witnesses—turned hostile and did not support the case. Medical evidence did not conclusively establish the allegations, and independent witnesses present at the clinic were not examined. The Court emphasised that conviction cannot rest on FIR statements alone or presume hostile witnesses were "won over." Strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in rape cases regardless of allegation severity, and when primary witnesses resile and corroboration is weak, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.