The Supreme Court acquitted an accused in a rape case after finding material contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and inconsistencies in the findings of the lower courts. In Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab, the accused had been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The Trial Court had acquitted him of abduction under Section 366 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the prosecutrix's minority or that she had been taken away without consent. However, the same court relied upon her testimony to convict him of rape. The Supreme Court found this selective assessment of the evidence unsustainable in the circumstances of the case. It further observed that medical evidence establishing sexual intercourse does not independently establish absence of consent. The Court emphasised that conviction must rest upon credible evidence rather than conjecture or moral judgments. Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction. The judgment addresses appreciation of testimony, Section 114A of the Evidence Act, consent and criminal evidentiary standards.