Court cites discrepancies in prosecution's evidence, lack of corroborative medical proof, and doubts on investigation integrity.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the conviction of Surajpal and Udai Pal, who were previously sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under charges of gang rape and criminal intimidation, as well as offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The High Court bench, presided over by Justice Manoj Bajaj, delivered the judgment on February 27, 2026, setting aside the trial court's decision due to substantial discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The case originated from an incident alleged to have occurred on June 8, 2015, when the complainant's daughter was reportedly assaulted by the accused while returning home. The prosecution's case largely relied on the testimony of the victim and her parents. However, the High Court found that the evidence presented was riddled with inconsistencies. Notably, the medical reports did not support the claims of physical injuries purportedly sustained by the victim.
The court observed that critical material evidence, such as the victim's torn clothes, was not presented during the investigation. Additionally, the younger sister of the victim, who was claimed to be an eyewitness, was neither examined nor called as a witness, raising questions about the thoroughness of the investigation. These lapses significantly weakened the prosecution's case.
Furthermore, the defense highlighted a possible motive for false implication, suggesting that the accusations were driven by personal enmity due to a separate incident involving the elopement of a family member with one of the accused. This defense was supported by admissions made during cross-examination.
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for a thorough investigation to uphold convictions in criminal cases.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Sections 376-D, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act set aside due to material discrepancies in prosecution evidence and lack of corroboration by medical and physical evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 376-D and 506 of IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, Section 164 Cr.P.C, Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Surajpal v. State of UP, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2859679
