The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction and twenty-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of two men, Surajpal and Udai Pal, who were accused of gang-raping a minor in 2015. The Court observed that the ocular version of the incident provided by the prosecutrix was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the investigative findings.
Justice Manoj Bajaj, while presiding over the appeals, noted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a shadow of doubt, highlighting “material discrepancies” in the testimonies of the victim and her parents.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered on June 9, 2015, at Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, based on a complaint by the victim’s father (P.W.-1). It was alleged that on June 8, 2015, around 5:00 PM, his 14-year-old daughter was returning home with fodder when the accused, Surajpal and Udai Pal, pulled her into the fields of one Rakesh.
The complainant alleged that the accused tore the victim’s clothes and raped her. When she resisted, Surajpal reportedly gagged her mouth with a cloth. The victim allegedly reached home in torn clothes and narrated the incident. Following the investigation, the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly) convicted both appellants on December 16, 2020, under Sections 376-D (Gang Rape) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Rahul Saxena, appearing for the appellants, argued that the testimonies of the prosecutrix (P.W.-2) and her parents (P.W.-1 and P.W.-3) contained major discrepancies. He emphasized that although the victim claimed her younger sister, Shyamwati, witnessed the incident and was even tied up by the accused, the prosecution never examined her as a witness.
Furthermore, the defense argued that the case was a result of prior enmity. The prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination that a relative’s wife had eloped with the appellant Surajpal. The counsel also pointed out that the medical evidence and FSL report did not support the ocular version.
Counsel for the Respondent (State): The learned AGA, supported by the complainant’s counsel, argued that the prosecutrix clearly identified the accused and detailed their involvement. They relied on the testimony of Dr. Shilpi Kesarwani (P.W.-4), who mentioned a torn hymen, and Dr. S.S. Chauhan (P.W.-6), who estimated the victim’s age to be approximately 16 years. They contended that the trial court’s judgment was sound and required no interference.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon perusing the record, the High Court identified several critical flaws in the prosecution’s narrative:
- Non-Examination of Key Witness: The Court found it “strange” that the victim’s younger sister, who was allegedly an eyewitness and was reportedly tied up by the accused, was neither associated with the investigation nor summoned as a witness.
- Conflict Between Ocular and Medical Evidence: The victim claimed she suffered injuries on her chest and back that resulted in bleeding. However, the medical report (Exb. Ka-3) showed no marks of injury. The Court observed, “The contradiction between ocular version and the medical evidence also raises doubt in the prosecution case.”
- Absence of Physical Evidence: Although the victim claimed her clothes were torn and she walked home naked, the Investigating Officer did not collect these clothes. The Court noted that the victim’s house was only 125 meters from the site, and it was “not believable” that such a crime in an open area near a thoroughfare went unnoticed.
- Probability of False Implication: The Court found the defense’s theory of false implication “probable” due to the admitted elopement of the complainant’s nephew’s wife with the accused Surajpal.
The High Court criticized the trial court for failing to appreciate these discrepancies, stating:
“The trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in a proper manner by ignoring the material discrepancies in the prosecution case, therefore, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant.”
Decision
The Court concluded that the evidence adduced by the prosecution threw serious doubt on the case and that the charges were not proved beyond a shadow of doubt.
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated December 16, 2020, and acquitted Surajpal and Udai Pal of all charges. The Court ordered their immediate release from jail, provided they are not required in any other case.
Case Title: Surajpal vs. State of UP (Criminal Appeal No. 1550 of 2021) and Udai Pal vs. State of UP (Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2021)
