As per case facts, three accused persons were convicted for gang rape. The victim's testimony showed significant inconsistencies, initially claiming forcible abduction and gang rape by all three, then admitting ... a consensual relationship with one accused due to fear of her father, and later attributing her retractions to threats. The trial court acquitted the accused of abduction but convicted them of gang rape. The appellants challenged the conviction based on the victim's unreliable statements. The central legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained given the victim's repeatedly changing versions of events and the reliance on expert DNA evidence without adequate corroboration. Finally, the High Court concluded that the victim's testimony contained substantive oscillations on material particulars, casting serious doubt on the issue of consent. The court found that the evidence did not exclude the possibility of consensual intercourse and that the prosecution failed to establish the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside, leading to the acquittal of all accused.