The Allahabad High Court acquitted three men convicted in a 1983 gang rape case. The court said unexplained delay and material contradictions prevented proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted three men convicted in a 43-year-old gang rape case, citing serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, a six-day delay in filing the FIR and discrepancies in witness statements.
Justice Abdul Shahid observed that while a survivor’s testimony holds significant weight in sexual offence cases, it cannot be accepted as the ultimate truth without scrutiny. Its credibility, consistency and compatibility with the surrounding circumstances must also be assessed, the court said.
The case dates back to the night of October 17, 1983, when two women were allegedly gang-raped at their home in the Bindki area of Uttar Pradesh’s Fatehpur district. One woman was the other’s sister-in-law. According to the prosecution, four named accused and two other men entered their house, threatened family members with a country-made pistol and committed the offence.
The FIR was registered on October 23, six days after the alleged incident. A trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them on April 22, 1985.
DEFENCE POINT TO INCONSISTENCIES IN PROSECUTION CASE
During the appeal, the defence questioned the delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in the women’s statements, the failure to hand over the clothes they were wearing at the time of the alleged incident, and the absence of medical evidence supporting the allegations. The accused also claimed they had been falsely implicated due to prior enmity.
The High Court found that the initial complaint did not name two of the alleged perpetrators, whose involvement was mentioned later. The investigating officer also testified that the first survivor had not named the two men during questioning.
The court further noted significant discrepancies between the women’s accounts regarding the sequence of events, the roles of the accused and how family members were restrained. The clothes worn by the women at the time of the alleged incident were also not handed over to the police.
MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOUND NO FRESH EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL INJURIES ON EITHER WOMAN
However, the court clarified that the absence of injuries or medical corroboration alone was not sufficient to dismiss allegations of sexual assault. Similarly, a delay in filing an FIR does not automatically undermine the prosecution’s case.
In this instance, however, the delay remained inadequately explained, while the inconsistencies in the evidence raised doubts about the prosecution’s account. The court concluded that the charges had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
SURVIVOR’S TESTIMONY MUST BE ASSESSED FOR CREDIBILITY
The High Court observed that a conviction in a sexual offence case can rest solely on a survivor’s testimony if it is reliable and trustworthy. However, where contradictions in the statements of key witnesses affect the prosecution’s central narrative, the evidence must be assessed in its entirety.
