Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Rajendra & Ors – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.(s) 264 of 2015
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(G) and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Gang rape and criminal intimidation – Conviction and sentence – Whole case is based on sole testimony of prosecutrix and no other witnesses or evidence has been produced – Complaint was submitted after three months of occurrence of alleged incident and in the meantime, prosecutrix did not disclose incident to anybody, neither friends nor family and not even her husband – Version of prosecutrix is against natural conduct of the person – It would have been natural for prosecutrix to disclose the incident to her family members after some time and not to somebody who is unknown to her – Defence of prior enmity between parties has also not been properly considered by courts below and complete weightage has been given to testimony of prosecutrix and her emotional outbursts – There also exist material inconsistencies in her statements that further weakens case of prosecution – Conviction can rest on solitary version of prosecutrix, provided it inspires confidence of Court – In present case, version of prosecutrix utterly fails to inspire confidence of Court – There is no medical evidence, or any other evidence on record to prove that accused persons committed the grave act – Judgment and order of High Court set aside. (Paras 14, 15 and 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellants had approached High Court in appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment and order dated 31.03.2000/03.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 1999 wherein appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(G) and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- along with 6 months rigorous imprisonment u/s 506 IPC, running concurrently. High Court in appeal upheld the conviction awarded by the Trial Court.
Findings of 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. We therefore allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
The legal document discusses a criminal case involving allegations of gang rape and criminal intimidation. The key points include that the conviction and sentence cannot be upheld when the prosecutrix's account contradicts natural conduct and lacks supporting evidence. The case primarily relies on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, with no corroborating witnesses or medical evidence to substantiate the allegations. Additionally, significant delays in reporting the incident, inconsistencies in her statements, and the absence of physical or medical proof weaken the prosecution’s case. The court emphasizes that conviction based solely on the victim's testimony requires that her account inspire confidence; in this case, it does not. The court also notes that the circumstances surrounding the delay in reporting and discrepancies in her statements cast doubt on the credibility of her account. As a result, the court concludes that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly sets aside the convictions and orders the immediate release of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants challenging the Judgment and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 2001. The appellants had approached the High Court in appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the Judgment and order dated 31.03.2000/03.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 1999 wherein the appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(G) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- along with 6 months rigorous imprisonment u/s 506 IPC, running concurrently. The High Court in appeal upheld the conviction awarded by the Trial Court.
Factual Matrix
2. As per the prosecution story, on 31.07.1998, a written report was submitted by the victim to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun stating that on 07.04.1998 around 7:30pm while she was on her way back home from the market in Sanjay Colony, four people i.e. the appellants Rajendra, Pappu alias Hanuman, Sushil Kumar and Kishan met her. They closed her mouth and shut her eyes with a black handkerchief and raped her turn by turn after taking her to a nearby plot. After the alleged incident, she stated in the complaint, the accused kept threatening her because of which she could not file any complaint earlier. Based on this complaint, FIR/ Crime No. 315 of 1998 was registered at the P.S Dalanwala under Sections 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) against all four accused. On receipt of the F.I.R., investigating agency was set in motion. After the completion of investigation, final report/charge sheet was submitted against accused persons for the charges under Sections 376(2)(g), 427, 506 IPC on 27.10.1999. All the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial wherein after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence recorded, the Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.T. No. 80 of 1999 vide judgement and order dated 31.03.2000 and 03.04.2000 convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and under Section 506 IPC, and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to six months (concurrent sentences) and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (and in default S.I. for 6 months). Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No 911 of 2001 under Section 374 Cr.P.C before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital wherein the High Court finding no merit in the appeal dismissed the same vide order dated 28.09.2012. In dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble High Court observed that considering the nature of the crime and the manner in which it had been committed, there could have been no other witness except the victim herself and held that the statement given by the victim was trustworthy and nothing creates any reasonable doubt in it. The High Court further observed that the delay in registering the FIR was explained by the victim. The accused were known to her and thus she had no difficulty in identifying them.
3. Aggrieved by the High Court order, Accused no. 1 and 2 have challenged the same before us. During the pendency of the present appeal, Accused no. 3 and 4 have passed away.
Submissions
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are material contradictions in the FIR and in the statement given by the prosecutrix. Firstly, it is submitted that the FIR had been lodged after 3 months and 24 days of the alleged incident and no cogent explanation has been supplied for the delay. The reason mentioned in the FIR is ignorance and embarrassment however in her statement given to PW-2 she stated that she did not lodge the same beca
Gang rape and criminal intimidation – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where version of prosecutrix is against natural conduct of the person.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in FIR and contradictions in testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated testimony, along with the importance of medical evidence and the need to explain delays in lodging FI....
The prosecution's case can stand on the testimony of the victim alone, supported by corroboration, despite minor contradictions. Delays in reporting aren't fatal if reasonably explained.
The sole testimony of a victim in a rape case can sustain a conviction if found credible, regardless of the existence of physical evidence or corroborating witnesses.
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
In cases of sexual assault, delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if explained, especially when considering societal attitudes toward victims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
