NON-REPORTABLE

2026 INSC 238 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 264 OF 2015 RAJENDRA & ORS ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally sligneed abyrned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial rashmi dhyani pant Date: 2026.03.13 Reason:

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 subm