The Allahabad High Court has held that a rape victim’s inability to move her hands and legs out of fear cannot be treated as consent, while upholding a 1987 conviction under Section 376 IPC.
Justice Abdul Shahid dismissed a criminal appeal filed in 1987 and directed the convict, Mangal Singh, to surrender before the trial court to serve out the rest of his sentence.
Background
The appeal challenged the judgment dated 18.3.1987 of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, which convicted Mangal Singh under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000.
As per the prosecution, the incident took place on 28.5.1986 at noon, when the victim, a widow and mother of two, was returning home with her young son. The FIR was registered on her oral complaint the same day at 18:15 hours. The charge sheet was filed on 17.6.1986.
Arguments
Advocate Shriyansh Singh, appearing for the appellant, argued that the FIR was delayed even though the police station was only 12 km away, that the victim had no injury, and that there was no corroborating evidence. He termed PW-2 a chance witness, said the child with the victim was not examined, and alleged that the investigation was hasty and unfair. He also argued that the trial court ignored the alibi evidence of DW-1.
Additional Government Advocate Vinay Kumar Pandey, for the State, submitted that the victim, a rustic woman without means of conveyance, lodged the FIR within six hours after making arrangements for her three-year-old daughter at home. He termed her evidence sterling, corroborated by eyewitness PW-2, and argued that ocular evidence prevails over medical evidence.
Court’s Findings
On the delay, the Court accepted the victim’s explanation that she first went home to arrange for her younger daughter. Noting that she was a widow, uneducated and without means of conveyance, it held that the delay was properly explained and not fatal. On the omission of certain details from the FIR, the Court said “it is settled law that FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is simply basic prosecution case.”
On consent, the Court noted that the victim kept raising an alarm and had said her hands and legs did not move because of fear. It observed: “She was not moved her legs and hand, it may be occurred due to fear. It should not be treated as her consent.” It added that if she had consented, she would not have lodged the report within six hours of the incident.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings including Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, the Court held that the victim’s testimony was corroborated by the eyewitness and that minor discrepancies did not go to the root of the matter. It termed her deposition “of clinching and trustworthy and sterling nature.”
Citing State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy, the Court held that even a suspicious investigation does not prevent the rest of the evidence from being scrutinised independently. It rejected the alibi, noting that DW-1 had visited the accused’s house around 4 pm for a few minutes, while the incident occurred at noon. The defence of enmity was also found unproved, and the genuineness of the medical report had been admitted by the defence.
The Court concluded: “There is no infirmity or any perversity in the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court.”
Outcome
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. The appellant’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith. Any period already spent in jail will be adjusted against his sentence. A copy of the judgment, along with the trial court record, was ordered to be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Banda.
Case Title: Mangal Singh vs. State
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1987
Bench: Justice Abdul Shahid
Date: October 28, 2026
