Can a conviction for rape rest on the immorality of the accused's conduct or on the presiding judge's value judgment, without credible evidence?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — s.366 — Evidence Act, 1872 — s.114A — Rape — Testimony of the prosecutrix — Consent — Part acceptance and part rejection — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — s.366 — Testimony of the prosecutrix — No part acceptance — Held: A conviction for rape may rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix only if it inspires the confidence of the court; her evidence cannot be rejected on the charge under Section 366 and accepted on the charge under Section 376. (¶28, 29) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Denial of consent — Overall context of testimony — Held further: A prosecutrix's denial of consent is to be read in the overall context of her testimony; mere presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab does not prove rape where the surrounding circumstances show she willingly accompanied the accused. (¶25, 26) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Immoral conduct — Hard evidence — Held further: Conduct of the accused that is immoral and unethical does not, without clinching evidence, justify a conviction under Section 376; the charge must rest on hard evidence, not on the presiding judge's value judgment. Conviction set aside; appeal allowed. (¶29, 30)