In a judgment delivered on 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India acquitted two men previously convicted of abduction and rape, stating that the prosecution’s narrative was “full of holes” and did not inspire confidence. The Court found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the alleged victims and a lack of corroborative evidence, holding that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Background of the Case:
The appeal arose from a conviction recorded by the Trial Court in 2003 and subsequently affirmed by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on 2 July 2024. The appellants, Keshav S/o Laxman Rupnar and another, were charged alongside two others under allegations of abducting and raping two women, who were the wives of siblings and had allegedly left their matrimonial homes following a quarrel with their mother-in-law.
The prosecution claimed that the women boarded a tempo in which the accused were travelling, seeking to go to Kurla. Instead, they were allegedly taken to a remote field where they were raped. After the incident, they stayed in Parbhani for 15 days before returning, and an FIR was registered on 20 June 2000.
Arguments and Trial Court Proceedings:
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of the victims (PWs 2 and 3), which the Trial Court found credible and sufficient for conviction. The High Court upheld this reasoning.
However, the defence pointed to several contradictions and gaps in the evidence. Notably, the statements regarding their stay in Parbhani were inconsistent. PW2 stated they stayed with a “cousin-aunt” and another woman, while PW3 claimed they stayed first with an unknown woman and then with a relative. No supporting witnesses were examined to corroborate their stay or the reasons behind it. Furthermore, the victims did not disclose the alleged incident of rape to the people they stayed with.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
The Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran critically analysed the evidence and found the prosecution case unreliable.
The Court noted:
“Looking at the totality of the circumstances and the entire story as narrated by the victims… we find difficulty in accepting their testimony to be one having sterling quality.”
The Bench held that while the victims identified the accused and a test identification parade was conducted, the lack of corroboration from PW4, the only independent witness, weakened the case. PW4 testified to having seen the women and the child in the tempo but did not identify the accused.
Referring to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384] and Raju v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 133], the Court reiterated that while conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, courts must be cautious if the narrative is not convincing.
The Court added:
“The story put up by the prosecution as spoken of by PWs 2 and 3 are full of holes and it raises a grave suspicion in our minds which qualifies as reasonable doubt.”
The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution’s version. PW9, the doctor who examined the victims 15 days after the alleged incident, found no signs of forced sexual intercourse, even accounting for the time lapse. He stated that repeated forceful intercourse would likely leave some injuries visible within a month and a half.
Decision:
Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court observed:
“In the totality of the circumstances, we are unable to place any reliance on the oral testimony of PWs 2 and 3… It raises a grave suspicion in our minds which qualifies as reasonable doubt.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed by both the Trial Court and the High Court were set aside. The Court ordered that the accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and if on bail, their bail bonds be cancelled.
Case Citation:
Keshav & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024), decided on 30 April 2025
