Court Highlights Improper Identification of Accused, Contradictions in Witness Testimonies, and Lack of Corroborative Evidence; Quashes Convictions under SC/ST Act and Reduces Murder Charge
In a significant judgment dated July 1, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench, Division Bench) acquitted seven accused persons in a high-profile gang rape and murder case from Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh. The accused—Anwar Ali, Ramu alias Ram Kumar, Ram Sajivan Patel, Rati Pal Patel, Paras Nath Patel, Udai Raj, and Shankar Nai—were earlier convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and other punishments by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raebareli, in a 2011 judgment.
The case originated from an incident on the intervening night of May 24-25, 2002, when a nomadic Banjara community group, including the victim and deceased Pokhai, had set up temporary camps ("deras") in the village Hariharpur, Police Station Unchahar. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered the camp, assaulted the group with sticks, abducted and gang-raped the victim, and shot dead Pokhai when he tried to rescue her.
The trial court had convicted the accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly and rioting), 302 (murder), 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
However, on appeal, the High Court meticulously analyzed the entire evidence and found multiple critical infirmities in the prosecution case. It noted that the initial FIR was lodged against "3-4 unknown persons," but seven accused were later added without proper identification procedures like Test Identification Parade (TIP). The victim and other eyewitnesses did not know the accused before the incident and failed to identify them in a TIP, instead identifying them only in police custody and later in court, rendering such identification unreliable and inadmissible as per settled Supreme Court precedents.
Moreover, the court observed serious contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, including discrepancies regarding the number of assailants, the place and manner of the assault, and conflicting statements about the victim's marital status. The complainant’s evidence about the FIR preparation was also contradictory, with the scribe denying that the complainant himself dictated the FIR.
Medical and forensic evidence failed to corroborate the prosecution’s story adequately. The victim’s medical examination showed injuries consistent with penetration by a blunt object but was negative for spermatozoa, and the forensic examination revealed a petticoat instead of the alleged ghaghra (skirt) in evidence, undermining the prosecution’s case.
Significantly, the court found that neither the victim nor the deceased belonged to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe notified by the state government, nor was it proven that the crime was committed on the ground of caste. Consequently, the court quashed the convictions under the SC/ST Act, relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings that such enhanced punishment applies only if the accused knew the victim belonged to SC/ST and committed the offence on that ground.
On the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC, the court held that the deceased was shot during a sudden altercation while attempting to rescue the victim, with no premeditated intention to kill. Therefore, the offence falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), and the conviction under Section 302 was not sustainable.
The court further held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of unlawful assembly and common object required under Sections 141, 147, 148, and 149 IPC. It also criticized the trial court for convicting the accused under both Sections 147 and 148 IPC, which is not legally permissible since Section 148 is an aggravated form of Section 147.
After thorough consideration of the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It set aside the trial court judgment and acquitted all appellants. Appellant Rati Pal Patel, who was on bail, was directed to continue on bail, while the others were ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in other cases.
The judgment underscores the critical importance of proper identification procedures, corroborative evidence, and adherence to legal provisions in criminal trials, especially in sensitive cases involving allegations of sexual violence and murder.
Bottom Line:
Conviction based on improper identification of accused, major contradictions in witness testimonies, and lack of corroborative evidence cannot be sustained.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 141, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304, 323, 376; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(2)(v); Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374(2), 313; Indian Evidence Act Sections 9, 56, 57
Anwar Ali v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933255
