The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of three men in a rape case dating back to 1983, finding that material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, inconsistencies in the testimonies of the two complainants and an unexplained six-day delay in registering the FIR raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Justice Abdul Shahid, in an order dated October 12, 2026, allowed the appeal against the trial court’s 1985 conviction. The appeal originally involved four convicts, but proceedings against one of them had abated following his death during its pendency.
The High Court found that the trial court had failed to properly assess significant deficiencies in the evidence before recording the conviction.
Unexplained Delay in FIR Raised Questions About Prosecution Case
A significant issue before the High Court was the delay between the alleged offence on October 17, 1983, and the registration of the FIR on October 23, 1983.
The Court acknowledged that a delay in reporting sexual offences does not automatically undermine a prosecution case. However, it held that an unexplained delay, or one supported by an unsatisfactory explanation, becomes relevant when examining the reliability of the allegations.
The two women had attributed the delay to fear of the accused and claimed that they had been prevented from approaching the police.
The High Court, however, found that the prosecution had failed to provide a convincing explanation for why the allegations were not reported earlier despite opportunities to approach the authorities.
The Court also described the delay in registering the FIR as wilful and deliberate.
Material Inconsistencies Found in Testimonies
The High Court identified significant discrepancies between the accounts given by the two women, particularly concerning the roles attributed to the accused.
It observed that minor differences in witness testimony may arise when individuals recount traumatic incidents. Such variations, especially those relating to peripheral details or the sequence of events, do not necessarily affect the credibility of a witness.
However, the Court found that the contradictions in the present case went beyond minor inconsistencies and concerned material aspects of the prosecution’s allegations.
The Court also took note of material improvements in the testimonies and found that the evidence lacked the consistency and reliability required to sustain the conviction.
Medical Evidence and Previous Enmity Examined
The High Court further considered the medical examination reports of both women, which were prepared six days after the alleged incident. The examinations revealed no external or recent injuries on either woman.
Another circumstance examined by the Court was the admitted enmity between the accused and the women’s family.
The Court observed that previous enmity could operate as a double-edged weapon and considered this circumstance while assessing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
After examining the evidence, the Court found the accounts of the two principal witnesses insufficiently credible and reliable.
Case Originated From Alleged Assault in October 1983
According to the prosecution, four men allegedly entered a house at approximately 11 pm on October 17, 1983, while a woman and her sister-in-law were sleeping inside.
The prosecution alleged that the men threatened family members with weapons and sexually assaulted both women.
An FIR was subsequently registered on October 23, 1983. Following the trial, the accused were convicted of rape in 1985.
The convicted men challenged the judgment before the Allahabad High Court, where their appeal remained pending for several decades.
High Court Sets Aside Conviction
After considering the delay in reporting the alleged offence, contradictions in the witness accounts, medical evidence and admitted previous enmity, the High Court concluded that the prosecution evidence was not sufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction.
The Court held that the trial court had not properly appreciated these shortcomings while deciding the case.
Accordingly, Justice Abdul Shahid allowed the appeal, overturned the trial court’s conviction and acquitted the three surviving appellants.
