Doubtful Testimony And Delayed FIR: Allahabad HC Acquits Three Men In 1983 Gang Rape Case

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court set aside a four-decade-old conviction in a gang rape case, citing glaring inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and an unexplained delay in filing the First Information Report. The verdict underscores the necessity of credible evidence even in heinous crimes where the version of the prosecutrix is typically given high weightage.

A single-judge bench of Justice Avnish Saxena heard the criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of the CrPC. The appellants challenged the 1984 judgment of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, which had sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged gang rape of a woman belonging to a scheduled caste.

Court Identifies Major Discrepancies In Prosecution Version

The High Court observed that while the victim claimed to have been raped by four persons, including a driver, the FIR lodged five days after the incident only named three individuals. This omission, coupled with the lack of medical evidence corroborating a gang rape on a woman who was seven months pregnant at the time, led the court to doubt the veracity of the claims.

Rationale On Credibility And Medical Evidence

Referring to the legal principles regarding the testimony of a rape survivor, the Court noted that while corroboration is not always mandatory, the version must be credible.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "If the incident of was rape committed by four persons with a pregnant lady having pregnancy of seven months, the rape might have caused grave medical exigency, which was not reflected in the medico legal report. On the contrary, the pregnancy was stated to be normal. There is no mark of injury, even in the hands of the victim. The vagueness of the FIR is also reflected when only three persons were named in the FIR, though the victim was purportedly raped by four persons. The delay attributed in the FIR also shows that it is not attributed to any fear factor... the prosecution evidence is not creating confidence that the accused/appellants have committed rape."

Background:

The case originated from an incident alleged to have occurred on May 9, 1983. The informant (husband of the victim) alleged that upon returning from grazing goats, he found his house bolted from inside. After jumping the boundary wall, he reportedly saw the three appellants fleeing. The victim then informed him she had been raped. However, the FIR was only lodged on May 14, 1983.

The defense argued that the case was a fabrication resulting from a prior dispute over goats damaging crops. They highlighted that the medical report showed no external or internal injuries, which would be highly improbable in a case of gang rape involving a woman in advanced pregnancy.

In its analysis, the Court relied on the principles laid down in Lalliram Vs. State of M.P. ( "(2008) 10 SCC 69": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 1934), noting that although injury is not a sine qua non for rape, the factual matrix must be considered. Furthermore, citing Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court emphasized that appellate courts should not hesitate to grant the benefit of doubt if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding the prosecution story "unnatural" and the delay unjustified, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the men.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1350 of 1984
NeutralCitation: 2026:AHC:105087
Case Title: Hetram and others Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Om Prakash Shukla, Ramanuj Tripathi, S.d.n.singh, Tej Pal, Ashwini Tripathi
For the Respondent(s): A.G.A., Chandra Badan

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 172