The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the conviction of three men accused in a 1989 rape case, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed that the accused were not known to the victim at the time of the alleged incident, and the prosecution failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP), which cast serious doubts on the fairness of the investigation.
Case Background
The case dates back to May 23, 1989, when a woman from Chaksu, Jaipur, filed a complaint alleging that three unknown men forcibly took her from her home and committed rape. Based on her complaint, the police registered Crime No. 142/1989 under Sections 376(2), 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused—Madan (20), Sheoji (24), and Prahlad (30), all residents of Jammaniya village—were arrested and later convicted by the Sessions Court, Jaipur, in 1991. They were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹500 each.
The accused challenged the conviction in the Rajasthan High Court (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 209/1991), arguing that they had been falsely implicated and that the trial court’s verdict was based on weak and contradictory evidence.
Court’s Key Observations
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, who reserved the judgment on January 15, 2025, and pronounced it on January 31, 2025, analyzed the evidence and found that:
– The victim (PW-1 ‘S’) admitted in her cross-examination that she did not know the accused before or at the time of the incident.
– The names of the accused were allegedly provided to the victim by her brother-in-law (PW-3 ‘B’) after the incident, making the identification unreliable.
– Her mother-in-law (PW-2 ‘N’) stated that she had mentioned the accused’s names to the victim two to three days before the incident, but there was no reason for such a conversation.
– There was no Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted, which is a critical requirement in cases where the accused are unknown to the victim.
– There were contradictions in witness statements regarding the lighting conditions at the time of the incident—while the victim claimed it was dark, her mother-in-law testified that it was a full moon night.
– The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Ex. P-7) found human semen on the victim’s clothes, but the prosecution failed to prove whether it belonged to the accused or her husband, as she admitted to having intercourse with her husband before the incident.
Legal Precedents and Judgment
Citing Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011 SCC 7 130), the court emphasized that a rape conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim only if it is of “sterling quality”—meaning completely reliable, unblemished, and inspiring full confidence.
Justice Dhand observed:
“Every trial is a voyage of discovery, in which truth is the quest. The court is duty-bound to find truth from the evidence adduced by the parties.”
The court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the conviction was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the accused were acquitted.
Criticism of Police Investigation
In a scathing remark on police handling of the case, the court noted:
“The investigating agency has miserably failed to apprehend or book the real culprits. Had the police conducted a Test Identification Parade, the situation could have been different.”
The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home to issue guidelines ensuring that Test Identification Parades are conducted in cases where the accused are unknown to the victim.
