The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of two men accused of gang rape, ruling that while a conviction can rest on the solitary testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be trustworthy and inspire the court’s confidence. A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to a significant delay in filing the FIR and material inconsistencies in the victim’s account.
Case Background
The incident allegedly took place on April 7, 1998, in Dehradun. The prosecutrix alleged that while returning from the market, four individuals—Rajendra, Pappu alias Hanuman, Sushil Kumar, and Kishan—intercepted her, gagged her, and took her to a plot where they raped her turn by turn.
Crucially, the written report was submitted to the police only on July 31, 1998, a delay of 3 months and 24 days. The Trial Court convicted the four accused in 2000, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of the IPC. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Uttarakhand in 2012. Two of the original appellants passed away during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants contended that the delay in the FIR remained unexplained and that the prosecutrix’s statements were riddled with discrepancies, such as the location of the incident (a room vs. an open plot) and the distance from her house. They further argued that the case was a fabrication stemming from a prior “water dispute” enmity.
The Respondent State argued that the victim’s testimony was consistent regarding the act of rape and that her delay was justified by “shame and fear” following threats from the accused.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the version provided by the prosecutrix was “against a natural conduct of the person.” The bench noted that the victim did not disclose the incident to her husband or family for months, only allegedly telling a stranger woman whose evidence was never recorded.
The Court highlighted four critical lapses:
- Unexplained Delay: The 3-month and 24-day delay in lodging the FIR lacked a cogent explanation.
- Absence of Corroboration: There was no medical evidence or supporting witness testimony produced in court.
- Inconsistencies: There were material discrepancies between the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the site of occurrence.
- Prior Enmity: The lower courts failed to properly consider the defense regarding previous disputes between the parties.
The bench relied on the precedent in Vijayan vs. State of Kerala (2008) 14 SCC 763, where the Court held that it is “very hazardous” to convict an accused on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix when there is a long delay in filing the FIR and no supporting evidence like a medical report.
The Court observed:
“In the present case, the version of the prosecutrix utterly fails to inspire confidence of this Court… The material on record does not clearly establish the guilt of the accused person and the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. The surviving appellants, Rajendra and Pappu, were ordered to be released immediately.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rajendra & Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2015
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Date of Judgment: March 13, 2026
