In Kxxxxx v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.A. 320/2026 (decided 3 September 2026), Justice Madhu Jain of the High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal filed by a complainant against the acquittal of a man she had accused of repeated sexual assault. The judgment is a careful restatement of a settled but frequently misunderstood principle: the testimony of a prosecutrix can, by itself, sustain a conviction — but only where that testimony inspires confidence. Where the account suffers from material discrepancies, an acquittal recorded by the trial court will not be disturbed in appeal.
The background
The appellant-complainant alleged that the accused had subjected her to repeated non-consensual sexual acts beginning in 2017, including by administering intoxicants, and had threatened her. She became pregnant and gave birth in 2019, and a DNA examination confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child. An FIR was registered in March 2021 under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 377, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. In October 2024 the trial court acquitted the accused, pointing to inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the delay in reporting. The complainant then invoked her right as a victim to appeal against the acquittal before the High Court.
What the Court held
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal. The Court accepted the settled proposition that a prosecutrix's sole testimony can form the basis of conviction, but emphasised its equally settled limit:
"The principle that the testimony of the prosecutrix can form the sole basis of conviction does not dispense with the requirement that such testimony must inspire confidence."
Testing the record against that standard, the Court identified material discrepancies in the complainant's account — inconsistent versions of how and when intoxicants were administered, her state of consciousness during the first alleged incident, the timing of her disclosure of the pregnancy, and claims about photographs and videos that were never substantiated. Taken cumulatively, these discrepancies deprived the testimony of the quality needed to found a conviction, and the trial court's view was a plausible one with which the appellate court would not interfere.
The legal architecture of a victim's appeal
Why the appeal failed despite the DNA report
The DNA finding established paternity, and therefore a physical relationship. But the charge required the prosecution to prove that the relationship was non-consensual in the manner alleged — sustained by intoxication and threats over a period of years. It was on that terrain that the testimony faltered. The judgment is a reminder that scientific evidence answers only the question it is designed to answer; it does not repair a narrative that is internally inconsistent on the ingredients of the offence.
Takeaways for practice
The decision sits alongside the Delhi High Court's recent confirmation that a victim's appeal requires no leave: access to the appellate forum is easy, but success within it still turns on the quality of the evidence led at trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a person be convicted of rape on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix?
Yes. Indian law does not require corroboration of a prosecutrix's testimony as a matter of rule. But the testimony must be reliable, trustworthy and of such quality that it inspires confidence. Where material discrepancies undermine that quality, courts decline to convict on the sole account.
Can a victim appeal against an acquittal?
Yes. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC — now the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS 2023 — gives the victim an independent right of appeal against an acquittal, and the Delhi High Court has held that no leave of the court is required for such an appeal.
Does a DNA report proving paternity by itself prove the offence of rape?
No. A DNA report may establish a biological relationship, but the offence under Section 376 IPC (now Section 64 BNS) turns on absence of consent and the reliability of the overall prosecution account. Courts assess the DNA finding together with the rest of the evidence rather than treating it as conclusive of the offence.
What standard does an appellate court apply to an acquittal?
An appellate court interferes with an acquittal only where the trial court's view is perverse or impossible on the evidence. If the acquittal reflects a plausible view — for instance, one grounded in material contradictions in the testimony — the appellate court will not substitute its own assessment.