Supreme Court Acquits Convicts in Gang Rape Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Delayed FIR, The Supreme Court overturned the convictions of Rajendra and others citing lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's account.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of Rajendra and others in a gang rape case due to the absence of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony. The court emphasized the unreliability of a conviction based solely on the prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony, particularly when the FIR was filed three months after the alleged incident without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The appellants, who were initially sentenced to rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, had their conviction upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court. However, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, found that the prosecution's case lacked the necessary evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case revolved around an incident on April 7, 1998, where the prosecutrix alleged that she was gang-raped by the appellants. The FIR was lodged on July 31, 1998, with the prosecutrix claiming fear and threats from the accused as reasons for the delay. However, the court found inconsistencies in her statements regarding the incident's details and the reasons for not disclosing the incident to her family or the authorities sooner.
The appellants' counsel argued that the FIR and the prosecutrix's statements contained material contradictions, and there was no corroborative evidence such as medical reports or witness testimonies to support her claims. They also highlighted previous enmity between the prosecutrix and the accused, suggesting a motive for false allegations.
The Supreme Court referenced the case of Vijayan v. State of Kerala, where it was held that a conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, without any supporting evidence and with a delayed FIR, is hazardous. The court found parallels in the present case, noting the absence of medical evidence and other witnesses.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecutrix's testimony failed to inspire confidence and that the prosecution did not establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants' conviction was set aside, with orders for their immediate release if not required in any other case.
Bottom Line:
Conviction based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony without corroborative evidence and explanation for delay in filing FIR deemed unsafe for upholding conviction.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 376(2)(g), 506; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 374
Rajendra v. State of Uttarakhand, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2865592
