As per case facts, the prosecutrix was abducted by several individuals in a car and subjected to rape. The incident was reported to the police after a delay. Initially, an ... inquiry found the version false, but after a subsequent complaint, the matter was reinvestigated, and a challan was filed, leading to the appellants' conviction for abduction and rape. They filed an appeal against this conviction. The question arose whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, an application exonerating the accused, the inconclusive medical evidence, and hostile witnesses. Finally, the High Court observed material contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony, where she stated the accused in court were not the actual perpetrators and that she named them at police instance. The medical examination, conducted much later and during her menstrual cycle, was inconclusive regarding forcible rape. Other prosecution witnesses also gave inconsistent statements or turned hostile. Finding the prosecution's case to be unreliable due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, the High Court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt, setting aside their conviction and acquitting them of all charges.