Allahabad HC Acquits Three Men in 1983 Gang Rape Case

The Allahabad High Court acquitted three men in a 1983 gang rape case, highlighting issues with the credibility of the prosecution’s testimony. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abdul Shahid on 16 March 2026, which set aside the conviction from a trial court’s judgment dated 22 April 1985. The original case involved allegations against Mohd. Anis Khan, Sirajul, Chhotey Lal, and Fakku under Sections 147 (rioting) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court had sentenced the accused to one year and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

The case originated from a written complaint submitted on 23 October 1983 regarding an incident that allegedly occurred around 11:00 PM on 17 October 1983. The complainant claimed that while she was sleeping under a thatched hut with her sister-in-law, the accused, armed with a gun, entered the premises along with two unidentified men. The victims alleged that the assailants forcibly disrobed them and subjected them to sexual assault while threatening their family members.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Bindki, Fatehpur, as Case Crime No. 263 of 1983 on 23 October 1983—six days after the alleged incident. Following an investigation and trial, the trial court convicted all four accused persons. During the pendency of the appeal, Mohd. Anis Khan passed away, and the proceedings against him were dismissed as abated on 16 March 2026, leaving Sirajul, Chhotey Lal, and Fakku as the surviving appellants.

Appearing for the appellants, counsel argued that the FIR had been registered after an inordinate delay of six days without any reasonable or plausible explanation. The defence pointed out that no torn or stained clothes worn by the victims were recovered or produced, no external or internal injuries were noted in the medical examination, and there was a complete lack of medical corroboration. It was further contended that despite the alleged presence of the victim’s husband and father-in-law at the premises, they were not produced as prosecution witnesses, and the case was engineered due to admitted family enmity.

Opposing the appeal, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) contended that the victims had supported the prosecution version and that ocular testimony must prevail over medical findings. The State argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and there were no perverse findings recorded by the trial court.

Examining the evidence on record, the Court observed that “the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material improvements in the testimonies of the victims, and lack of reliable corroborative evidence.”

Addressing the issue of delayed reporting, the Court noted that “mere delay in lodging an FIR is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case, particularly in cases involving sexual offences, where the surrounding circumstances may explain the delay. However, where the delay remains unexplained or the explanation offered is not found satisfactory in the light of the evidence on record, it becomes a relevant circumstance while assessing the credibility of the prosecution case.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Balku Oram vs. State of Odisha and others, reiterating that deliberate and unexplained delays undermine the credibility of an investigation. While the victims claimed they could not approach the police due to fear and obstruction of passage, the complainant (PW-1) admitted that she had approached the police the very morning following the incident regarding threats, yet did not disclose the sexual assault.

The Court further identified serious contradictions between the ocular testimony and the initial complaint. Citing Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, the Court noted that serious lacunas, contradictions, and absence of medical corroboration make it unsafe to convict. The Court also referred to Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra for the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, Babu Ram and others vs. State of Punjab on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab regarding unreliable witness testimonies, and Kuldeep Yadav vs. State of Bihar regarding contradictory witness accounts.

Reiterating the legal standard, the Court acknowledged that “the testimony of a prosecutrix, if found trustworthy, reliable and of sterling quality, can form the sole basis of conviction without requiring independent corroboration.” However, the bench underscored: “It is settled proposition of law that deposition of prosecutrix is on higher pedestal than of injured witness, whereas, the deposition of the prosecutrix is not an absolute undeniable, or unquestionable fact or gospel truth; its genuineness, truthfulness and veracity has to be examined on the touchstone of the believability, credibility and plausibility in view of facts and circumstances of each case.”

The Court held that “There has been wilful and deliberate delay in registration of the FIR. The enmity between accused persons and family of the victims has been admitted. The enmity is otherwise a double-edged weapon. The credibility of witnesses/two prosecutrix are not found as truth, plausible and credible.”

Holding that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the cumulative effect of the material contradictions, omissions, and infirmities, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed for Sirajul, Chhotey Lal, and Fakku, resulting in their acquittal.