ISSUE:
Whether the failure to establish the charge under Section 366 IPC affects the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC?
Whether the identification of the accused was reliable and free from doubt?
Whether the medical and forensic evidence sufficiently corroborates the prosecution's case?
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of each accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
RULE:
The charge under Section 376 IPC must be assessed independently of the charge under Section 366 IPC. The failure to prove abduction does not, by itself, negate the allegation of rape.
Identification of the accused must be free from suggestion and procedural irregularities. If the prosecutrix had prior exposure to the accused during police custody or if the identification parade was conducted under circumstances that could lead to suggestibility, the reliability of the identification is compromised.
Medical evidence should support the prosecution’s version of events. The absence of injuries or conclusive signs of recent sexual assault, especially in a case of alleged gang rape, weakens the prosecution’s case unless otherwise corroborated.
Guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If inconsistencies in testimony, unreliable identification, and lack of corroborative evidence create uncertainty, the accused are entitled to acquittal.