Conviction of three accused set aside due to unexplained six-day delay in FIR, material contradictions in victim statements, absence of medical injuries, and missing crucial evidence
In a significant judgment dated October 12, 2026, the Allahabad High Court acquitted three accused-Sirajul, Chhotey Lal, and Fakku-who were convicted in a 1983 rape case involving two victims from Fatehpur district. The Court set aside the earlier conviction and sentence imposed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, highlighting serious doubts about the prosecution's case.
The case arose from an alleged incident on the night of October 17, 1983, when the victims, who were married women and mothers of infants, claimed that the accused forcibly entered their home and committed sexual assault upon them. The FIR was lodged only six days later, on October 23, 1983, which the Court found to be an inordinate and unexplained delay.
The Court meticulously examined the evidence, including the written complaint, victims' testimonies, medical reports, and statements of other witnesses. It observed that the delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, considering that the victims' family members had approached the police earlier and one accused had already been arrested before the FIR was registered. This delay severely affected the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Furthermore, the testimonies of both victims contained material contradictions and improvements over time, especially regarding the identity of accompanying persons, the sequence of events, and details about the assault. Notably, two individuals allegedly accompanying the accused and restraining family members were not named in the initial FIR, raising suspicion about the reliability of the accounts.
The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution's claims; no external or internal injuries were found on either victim, and no spermatozoa were detected in vaginal smears. Doctors opined that the victims were accustomed to sexual intercourse but could not confirm rape based on the medical examinations conducted six days post-incident.
Additionally, the prosecution failed to produce torn or bloodstained clothes of the victims, which were alleged to have been torn during the assault. The absence of such material evidence, combined with contradictory testimonies and delayed reporting, led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also noted that the presence of family members during the incident and their failure to act or testify raised further questions about the prosecution's narrative. Enmity between the parties was acknowledged, which could have influenced the allegations.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court of India, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that while the testimony of a prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction if trustworthy, it is not to be accepted as absolute truth if riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. The cumulative effect of the unexplained delay, omissions, contradictions, and lack of corroboration warranted acquittal.
The appeal against the first appellant, Mohd. Anis Khan, was dismissed as abated due to his death during the pendency of the appeal. The bail bonds of the acquitted accused were cancelled, and sureties discharged subject to compliance with relevant legal provisions.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principle that conviction must be based on credible and consistent evidence beyond reasonable doubt, especially in sensitive cases involving sexual offences.
Bottom Line:
Rape case - Conviction set aside - Six days' delay in lodging FIR not satisfactorily explained - Material contradictions and improvements in testimonies of prosecutrices - Names of alleged accompanying persons omitted in FIR - No recovery of torn clothes and no reliable corroboration from medical or independent evidence - Benefit of doubt given to accused.
Statutory provision(s): Penal Code, 1860 Sections 376, 147, 506; Cr.P.C. Sections 154, 161, 313, 437A
Mohd.Anis Khan v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995439
