‘Clear Case Of False Implication Due To Property Dispute’ : Allahabad High Court Acquits 3 Men In 32 Year Old Rape Case

The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla noted that though the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, however, in the instant case, the evidence of the prosecutrix, when read as a whole, did not corroborate with the medical evidence and hence, the same was not worthy of credence.

Referring to the Apex Court’s judgments in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996), Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2006) Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) and Manak Chand @ Mani vs. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937, the HC opined that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix but at the same time the Courts have to be extremely careful while examining the sole testimony.

These observations were made by the High Court while hearing an appeal against a 2004 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.-4), Badaun convicting the accused persons and sentencing them to imprisonment of life.

The case in brief

The prosecutrix gave a written Tehrir on November 14, 1991, stating that the accused (Shamim) had a land dispute with her husband and on the intervening night of 12/13.11.1991 at around midnight, accused Shamim along with other accused (Shafiq, Khurshid and Ashfaq) entered into her house, dragged her towards the sugarcane field and committed the offence of rape for the whole night, one by one.

In the morning, when the villagers saw her, they rushed to rescue her, and the accused fled away. The prosecutrix came out from the sugarcane field with their help and then lodged the FIR.

On the same day (November 14, 1991) the prosecutrix was produced for medical examination, but the doctor did not find any external injuries were found and in the medical report, it was opined that no opinion could be given about rape as there were no sperms seen in the vaginal smear and was habitual to sexual intercourse.

The charge sheet was submitted against all the four accused persons under Sections 452, 376 IPC. The co-accused Ashfaq died during inquiry, therefore, the proceedings were abated against him.

After the cognizance, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for the commencement of the trial. Following a trial, the accused were found guilty and were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Challenging their conviction, the accused persons moved to the High Court. It was their primary contention before the High Court that it was a delayed FIR and that they had been falsely implicated due to a property dispute.

High Court’s observations

In its analysis of the evidence and the facts of the case, the Court observed that though there was a slight delay in lodging the FIR, but, in rape matters it is a normal phenomenon as the Court reasoned that in cases of sexual assault, the victim is often bashful and carries trauma in her mind and requires some time to master the courage to undertake a legal battle against the culprit.

Further, regarding the defence of the accused that it was a case of false implication, the Court was of the strong view that a property dispute amongst the party is a strong reason for false implication and in the instant case when a suit was already instituted for the cancellation of the sale deed, there was no occasion for the accused to unnecessary insult the prosecutrix by committing rape.

Factoring into account the medical report of the victim, the Court further noted that the prosecutrix was a married young lady having two children and was medically examined within 48 hours of the incident wherein no external injuries were found on her body and no opinion was given about rape.

Importantly, the Court also took into account the fact that PW-2 and PW-3 were examined as eyewitnesses, however, they could only narrate the incident which took place within the house but could not depose about the incident which took place in the sugarcane field.

Against this backdrop, taking note of other evidence which was going against the prosecution’s case the court concluded that it was a clear case of false implication due to the property dispute as there is no material evidence to substantiate the prosecution's case.

In view of this, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge Badaun was set aside.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: A.K. Singh, Sudhir Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Govt. Advocate

Case title - Shamim And Others vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5690 of 2004]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 429

Click Here To Read/Download Order