LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 25 September 2026

Can the evidence of the prosecutrix be rejected on a Section 366 IPC charge and accepted on a Section 376 IPC charge?

PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI v. STATE OF PUNJAB
2026 INSC 1054 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2015
Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.376 Indian Penal Code, 1860📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be rejected on a Section 366 IPC charge and accepted on a Section 376 IPC charge.

No. An accused can be convicted of rape on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but only where her statement inspires the confidence of the court. There cannot be partial rejection of her evidence for Section 366 and partial acceptance of the very same statement to prove Section 376; evidence of unimpeachable character must be accepted as a whole. Here the Sessions Judge disbelieved her version to acquit on the Section 366 charge, a finding that attained finality, so the same version could not sustain a conviction under Section 376.

Headnote

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)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 28While it is true that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, an accused can be convicted of rape but for such a conviction, it would also require that such statement of the prosecutrix must inspire the confidence of the court. There cannot be partial rejection of the evidence of the prosecutrix for the purpose of Section 366 IPC and partial acceptance of the very same statement for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 376 IPC. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of unimpeachable character, it has to be accepted in its entirety. There cannot be part acceptance and part rejection of the statement of the prosecutrix. It is for this reason that we had analysed the materials for record qua the charge under Section 366 IPC though the accused-appellant was acquitted of the said charge considering its inter-twinedness with the charge under Section 376 IPC.
Paragraph 29When the learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved the prosecution version insofar the charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, the very same prosecution version could not have been accepted to convict the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC. While the conduct of the appellant may be immoral and unethical, that by itself would not justify a conviction under Section 376 IPC without any clinching evidence. Such a charge must be proved on the basis of hard evidence and not on the basis of the surmises and conjectures based on the value judgment of the presiding judge. Immorality of an act sans credible evidence cannot justify a conviction.
Acts & Sections
s.376 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.366 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.375 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.359 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.361 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.362 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.114A Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI v. STATE OF PUNJAB — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Must a prosecutrix's denial of consent be read in the overall context of her testimony?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?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections