Back
43 Years Later: Allahabad HC Frees 3 Men in '83 Gang Rape Case, Slams ' ' and Missing Medical Proof
In a striking reversal after over four decades, the has acquitted three men convicted in a 1983 gang rape case involving a seven-month pregnant woman from a Scheduled Caste family. Justice Avnish Saxena set aside the trial court's judgment, granting Hetram, Shanker, and Bhudat the due to glaring gaps in evidence—no injuries, no semen, a delayed and inconsistent FIR, and shaky witness accounts. This ruling underscores how the absence of corroboration can unravel even eyewitness testimonies in heinous cases.
Village Feud or Brutal Assault? The Events of
The case unfolded in Bharna village, Mathura district, dominated by higher castes, where complainant Baso— the sole Scheduled Caste resident—was grazing goats near Saahar Canal. Around 2 p.m., he returned home with nephew Banwari Lal and friend Lajja, only to find the house bolted from inside. Jumping the wall, Baso claimed he saw the three appellants fleeing as his crying wife alleged rape by them and an unidentified "driver" at knifepoint in the kotha (storeroom).
The woman testified to a one-hour ordeal: dragged, threatened, and assaulted sequentially while pregnant and in pain. But the FIR, lodged five days later on at Barsana police station, named only three accused, omitting the driver despite her account. Medical exam on revealed no injuries, no sperm, and a normal pregnancy—puzzling for an alleged violent gang attack.
The trial court convicted under , sentencing each to seven years' RI, dismissing the delay as fear-induced and attributing absent injuries to her marital status ("habituated to sex") and dried bangle cuts.
Prosecution Clings to Eyewitnesses, Defense Spots Cracks
Appellants' counsel hammered inconsistencies: Why name only three in the FIR if four raped her? No chase despite spotting neighbors fleeing fully clothed? Informant grazed goats post-incident, undermining fear claims. Banwari, dubbed a " ," flip-flopped on the driver's role and knife threats. No doctor testified, no broken bangles recovered, and site plan contradictions (escape via wall, not door).
Prosecution countered with "reliable" testimonies from Baso (PW1), victim (PW2), and Banwari (PW3), plus Investigating Officer Balbeer Singh (PW4). Fear from caste dynamics explained the delay; admitted medical reports showed no definitive rape opinion but didn't disprove it. Trial relied solely on , as documents were silent.
High Court Dissects: When Testimony Alone Falls Short
Justice Saxena meticulously parsed the record, prioritizing documents over statements. The omitted the fourth assailant, medicals showed despite a prolonged gang assault on a late-term pregnant woman—"grave medical exigency" expected but absent. Inconsistencies abounded: victim's bleeding hands unmentioned by others, no first aid, washed clothes unexplained.
Drawing from precedents, the bench clarified: Injury isn't mandatory for rape proof ( Lalliram v. State of M.P. , 2008 SCC), but its absence is fatal when credibility wanes ( ; ). Echoing Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of M.P. (2024 SCC), appellate courts must intervene if doubt lingers.
The narrative strained logic—a timid informant unmoved to immediate hospital rush or pursuit, possible motive in goat-crop disputes. As reported, the court deemed prosecution evidence unconvincing.
Key Observations from the Bench
"If the incident of was rape committed by four persons with a pregnant lady having pregnancy of seven months, the rape might have caused grave medical exigency, which was not reflected in the."
"In not naming the fourth accused in the FIR, who has raped the victim, creates doubts as to truthfulness of the prosecution case."
"The prosecution evidence is not creating confidence that the accused/appellants have committed rape…they shall be acquitted from the charges as the ocular and documentary evidences does not evinces the involvement of accused appellant in the offence of rape."
"The delay attributed in the FIR also shows that it is not attributed to any fear factor, as the informant was continuously going out even after the incident."
Acquitted: A Cautionary Tale for Rape Prosecutions
The High Court allowed the appeal , quashing convictions and discharging bail bonds on —43 years post-crime. Appellants, neighbors claiming false implication over livestock rows, walk free.
This decision signals appellate vigilance: Eyewitnesses aren't infallible without medical or circumstantial backing, especially in delayed, inconsistent cases. It may embolden defenses in similar scenarios but reinforces that suffices for acquittal , protecting the innocent while demanding robust proof in sensitive crimes.
