Allahabad HC Acquits Rape Accused In Jail For Over 19 Yrs, Raps Jail Authorities For Not Considering Case For Remission

The Allahabad High Court recently rapped the Uttar Pradesh state authorities for not considering the case of a rape accused (now acquitted by the High Court) for remission despite the fact that he spent over 19 years in jail (more than 21 years with remission).

The accused was convicted in a rape case [u/s 376 of IPC r/w Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act] in October 2003 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Thereafter, a jail appeal was moved before the High Court in 2004, however, as per the order sheet, the matter was listed only after a few years and the delay came to be condoned in the year 2008.

Now, between 2008 to 2022, the case was not listed at all, and taking note of this, the Court, in its order, also lamented the failure of the registry to list the appeal for 14 long years from 2008 to 2022.

Further, the Court went ahead to direct the Registrar (Listing) to impress upon the officer concerned to follow the decision of the Court in Vishnu v. State of U.P. which are yet not being followed as even after 2021, the matters are not being listed.

[NOTE: In Vishnu Tiwari case, the High Court had stressed upon the need for a periodical listing of the matters of those accused who are in jail for more than 10 or 14 years, while thier appeals are pending.]

Further, noting that even the State Government had not considered the case of the accused for remission during this period, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi expressed its anguish over the non-following of the decision of Apex Court in Saudan Singh v. State Of UP by the state government.

"...non-considering the cases of accused for remission seems to be the natural administrative conduct of the officers and the jail authority. We once again pained to show our anguish," the Court said.

"His case has not been considered for remission by the jail authorities though 14 years of incarceration is over and there are directions of the Apex Court and this Court. Even if there is no direction of the Courts, under Section 433 of Cr.P.C. the authorities concerned are under an obligation to consider the case of the accused for remission," the Court further added.

For context, in Saudan Singh Case, the Apex Court, while expressing its concern about the long pendency of criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court, on Feb 25, 2022, laid down some broad parameters that can be adopted by the High Court while granting bail. 

High Court acquits him of rape charges

Having analyzed the evidence on record, the High Court noted that the evidence of the doctor and the medical report does not show the presence of any spermatozoa though the prosecutrix after lodging of F.I.R. was directly taken from the police station for medical examination. The Court also noted that no injuries were found on the victim's body, which was improbable in the circumstances as narrated by the victim 

"The important aspects are non founding of spermatozoa and non finding of any kind of injuries which would permit us to upturn the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. There is no finding as far as commission of offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act. Only on the ground that the prosecutrix and her family members belong to a particular community, can it be said that the offence has been committed? The answer is, No," the Court said as it overtunred sessions court's judgment and acquitted him

Advocate Rakesh Dubey appeared for the accused/appellant and AG Vikas Goswami appeared for the state.

Case title - Aftaf @ Nafees @ Pappu v. State Of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5275 of 2008]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 488

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment