Back
Supreme Court Frees Accused in 28-Year-Old Gang Rape Saga, Questions Sole Victim's Word
In a significant ruling on , the acquitted two surviving appellants in a 1998 gang rape case, setting aside convictions under . Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, in Rajendra & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2026 INSC 238; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 243), held that the 's uncorroborated testimony failed to inspire confidence amid glaring inconsistencies and a three-month FIR delay. Two other accused had died during the appeal.
A Night in Sanjay Colony Turns into a 28-Year Legal Battle
The ordeal allegedly began on , around 7:30 PM. The victim, a maid servant returning from the market in Dehradun's Sanjay Colony, claimed four men—Rajendra, Pappu alias Hanuman, Sushil Kumar, and Kishan—gagged her with a black handkerchief, blindfolded her, and dragged her to a nearby plot (or room, as versions varied) for a turn-by-turn gang rape. Threats of death silenced her initially.
No immediate outcry. No family disclosure. The written complaint surfaced only on —over three months later—to Dehradun's Senior Superintendent of Police, triggering FIR No. 315/1998 at under . The trial court ( , Sessions Trial No. 80/1999) convicted all four in to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fines. upheld it in , deeming the victim's account trustworthy despite the delay.
Defence Strikes at the Heart: Delay, Lies, and Old Grudges
Appellants' counsel hammered inconsistencies:
-
FIR vs. Statements
: Complaint mentioned a "plot," testimony a "room." Distance from home: 2-3 km vs. IO's 15-20 steps. Bulb-breaking incident? IO noted no electricity.
-
Unnatural Silence
: No family told—not even husband—due to "shame and ignorance," yet confided in a mystery woman, Rahees Fatima, whose testimony vanished despite IO's claim of recording it.
-
Prior Enmity
: Water dispute led to a
police complaint; victim's brother-in-law testified she was home that night.
-
Scene Implausibility
: Summer evening in a crowded area, no witnesses, no screams? No medical evidence, no injuries. Scribe of FIR (Jagjeevan Jot Singh) unexamined; site plan unsigned.
Counsel invoked natural human behavior: Why wait months without corroboration, leaving accused defenceless?
Prosecution Clings to Victim's Oath: Fear and Familiar Faces
The State countered that the victim's courtroom testimony ticked all rape boxes—non-consensual acts by known villagers in Pradhan's room, knife threat by Kishan, post-incident teasing. Delay? Explained by shame, fear, and a bulb-breaking trigger. Cross-examination confirmed familiarity, no need for mistaken identity. High Court rightly prioritized her "emotional outburst" , they argued—no legal errors.
Why the Apex Court Doubted: Echoes of Vijayan and the Need for Trustworthy Testimony
The Bench dissected the record meticulously. Quoting
Vijayan v. State of Kerala
((2008) 14 SCC 763)—a case with seven-month FIR delay, sole testimony, no medicals—the Court warned:
"In cases where the sole testimony of the
is available, it is very dangerous to convict the accused, specially when the
could venture to wait for seven months for filing the FIR for rape."
Here, no DNA, no injuries, no independent witnesses. Courts below ignored enmity and contradictions, overweighting emotion over evidence. Victim's "against natural conduct" choice—to tell a stranger, not kin—eroded credibility.
Key Observations
"The complaint was submitted after three months of the occurrence... This version of theis against a natural conduct of the person. It would have been natural for theto disclose the incident to her family members after some time and not to somebody who is unknown to her."
"It is thethat the conviction can rest on the solitary version of the, provided it inspires confidence of the Court. In the present case, the version of theutterly fails to inspire confidence of this Court."
"There is no medical evidence, or any other evidence on record to prove that the accused persons committed the grave act. The ratio in the case of Vijayan (supra) squarely covers the case at hand."
Acquittal Ordered: A Reminder on Burden of Proof
"We therefore allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court,"
ruled Justice Varale. Appellants to be released if not held elsewhere.
This precedent reinforces safeguards in sole-testimony rape cases: delays demand explanation, inconsistencies invite scrutiny, corroboration bolsters beyond doubt. Future prosecutions must fortify victim accounts or risk acquittal, balancing justice for survivors with accused rights.
