Observing that the deposition of a prosecutrix cannot be treated as an unquestionable truth when riddled with material contradictions and unexplained delays, the Allahabad High Court bench comprising Justice Abdul Shahid set aside the conviction and sentences of three men in a decades-old alleged gang rape case. The Court allowed the appeal against the judgment dated April 22, 1985, passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, which had convicted the accused persons under Sections 147 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to one year and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.
Case Background
The case originated from a written complaint submitted on October 23, 1983, by one of the victims regarding an incident alleged to have occurred around 11:00 PM on October 17, 1983. According to the complaint, while the complainant was sleeping under a thatched hut with her sister-in-law, accused Mohd. Anis Khan (carrying a gun), Sirajul, Chhotey Lal, and Fakku, along with two unidentified persons, entered the premises. The victims alleged that the assailants forcibly disrobed them and subjected them to sexual assault while threatening their family members.
An FIR was registered at Police Station Bindki, Fatehpur, as Case Crime No. 263 of 1983 on October 23, 1983—six days after the alleged incident. Following an investigation and trial, the trial court convicted all four accused persons. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no. 1, Mohd. Anis Khan, passed away, and the proceedings against him were dismissed as abated on March 16, 2026, leaving Sirajul, Chhotey Lal, and Fakku as the surviving appellants.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellants, counsel argued that the FIR had been registered after an inordinate delay of six days without any reasonable or plausible explanation. The defence pointed out that no torn or stained clothes worn by the victims were recovered or produced, no external or internal injuries were noted in the medical examination, and there was a complete lack of medical corroboration. It was further contended that despite the alleged presence of the victim’s husband and father-in-law at the premises, they were not produced as prosecution witnesses, and the case was engineered due to admitted family enmity.
Opposing the appeal, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) contended that the victims had supported the prosecution version and that ocular testimony must prevail over medical findings. The State argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, there were no perverse findings recorded by the trial court, and the conviction deserved to be upheld.
Analysis of the Court
Examining the evidence on record, the Court observed that “the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material improvements in the testimonies of the victims, and lack of reliable corroborative evidence.”
Addressing the issue of delayed reporting, the Court noted that “mere delay in lodging an FIR is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case, particularly in cases involving sexual offences, where the surrounding circumstances may explain the delay. However, where the delay remains unexplained or the explanation offered is not found satisfactory in the light of the evidence on record, it becomes a relevant circumstance while assessing the credibility of the prosecution case.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Balku Oram Vs. State of Odisha (relying on Ram Das and others Vs. State of Maharashtra), Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Kishan Chand (Deceased) through LR Vs. Gurpal Singh and others, reiterating that deliberate and unexplained delays undermine the credibility of an investigation. While the victims claimed they could not approach the police due to fear and obstruction of passage, the complainant (PW-1) admitted that she had approached the police the very morning following the incident regarding threats, yet did not disclose the sexual assault.
The Court further identified serious contradictions between the ocular testimony and the initial complaint:
- The names of two associates (Ram Dularey and Ranjit), alleged during the trial to have restrained the family members, were absent from the written complaint, and the Investigating Officer (PW-5) confirmed that PW-1 did not name them during the investigation.
- While the victims testified that their clothes were torn, the initial complaint mentioned removal of clothes, and no torn or bloodstained garments were ever produced or seized.
- The medical examinations conducted on October 23, 1983, revealed no internal or external injuries, old torn hymens, absence of spermatozoa, and the doctors opined that no finding of rape could be given. This directly contradicted PW-1’s assertion that she bled and suffered injuries.
- Material variations emerged between PW-1 and PW-2 concerning the sequence of events and alleged acts over the claimed duration of one to one-and-a-half hours.
- Independent witness PW-3 (Lalla) admitted he was not an eyewitness to the sexual assault, and PW-4 (Sukkhu) turned hostile, stating he knew nothing about the incident.
Citing Krishna Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana, the Court noted that serious lacunas, contradictions, and absence of medical corroboration make it unsafe to convict. The Court also referred to Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra for the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, Babu Ram and others Vs. State of Punjab on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab regarding unreliable witness testimonies, and Kuldeep Yadav Vs. State of Bihar regarding contradictory witness accounts.
Reiterating the legal standard, the Court acknowledged that “the testimony of a prosecutrix, if found trustworthy, reliable and of sterling quality, can form the sole basis of conviction without requiring independent corroboration.” However, the bench underscored:
“It is settled proposition of law that deposition of prosecutrix is on higher pedestal than of injured witness, whereas, the deposition of the prosecutrix is not an absolute undeniable, or unquestionable fact or gospel truth; its genuineness, truthfulness and veracity has to be examined on the touch stone of the believability, credibility and plausibility in view of facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Court held that “There has been wilful and deliberate delay in registration of the FIR. The enmity between accused persons and family of the victims has been admitted. The enmity is otherwise double edged weapon. The credibility of witnesses/two prosecutrix are not found as truth, plausible and credible.”
Decision of the Court
Holding that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the cumulative effect of the material contradictions, omissions, and infirmities, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court allowed the appeal in respect of Sirajul, Chhotey Lal, and Fakku, set aside their conviction and sentences, and acquitted them of all charges. Their bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged subject to Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mohd. Anis Khan And Others Versus State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 1985
Bench: Justice Abdul Shahid
Date: October 12, 2026
