Back
Should Have Been Injuries If Five Accused Committed Gang Rape: Acquits Four
The has acquitted four men who were convicted of gang rape, holding that the medical evidence failed to corroborate the victim's testimony and that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy, in a judgment dated , observed that if five accused had raped the victim one after another, injuries should have been found on her body.
The case dates back to , when the victim and her niece were returning to their village after working as cooks at Fakirana Holy Cross in Bettiah. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of , five men—Shyamdeo Uraon (since deceased), Ramdeo Uraon, Gorakh Uraon, Mohan Uraon, and Ramawatar Uraon—allegedly forced the victim and her niece to attend a late-night panchayat. Instead, they took the women to an orchard, where the niece escaped and the five accused raped the victim one after another. A written complaint was filed four days later, leading to the registration of Semra P.S. Case No. 18 of .
The trial court convicted all five under and sentenced them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal remained pending for nearly two decades, and the court appointed as in . One appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, and the proceedings against him abated.
Why the Medical Evidence Proved Fatal
The argued that the medical report, which was marked as Exhibit 3 without examining the doctor, showed no signs of rape. The investigating officer, P.W. 7, admitted that the medical officer found no evidence of rape. The court noted:
“If at all the five accused had committed the offence of rape, there should have been some injuries found on the body of the victim. Further, the Doctor was not examined, for reasons best known to the prosecution.”
Relying on the 's decisions in and , the High Court reiterated that while a can alone sustain a conviction, it must be of "" and inspire confidence. Here, the victim's version was neither nor supported by any .
Contradictions That Undermined the Prosecution
The court found major discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W. 3 (the niece), P.W. 4 (the victim's brother), and P.W. 5 (the victim). The victim claimed the panchayat was held at midnight in a barn, while her niece said it was in a school. Both admitted that the panchayat was on the northern side of the house, yet they followed the accused to the south without explanation. The victim also stated she became unconscious during the incident and did not know how she returned home—but no one explained who brought her back.
The delay of four days in lodging the was not explained, and the written complaint did not name the scribe. Additionally, the charge was initially framed under , but the appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC—a discrepancy the court found to be contradictory in substance.
Failure to Follow Section 313 CrPC
The court also noted that the was not properly put to the accused under , citing and . This deprived the appellants of a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances against them.
Final Decision
Setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated , the High Court acquitted all four surviving appellants. Their were cancelled, and the records were ordered to be transmitted to the trial court. The appeal was allowed.
The judgment reinforces the principle that in sexual offence cases, the prosecution must prove its case , and medical evidence, where available, must align with the oral testimony for a conviction to stand.
