Survivor's Testimony Unimpeached, Non-Examination Of Mother Not Fatal: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In 1984 Rape Case
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a man in connection with a 1984 Rape case while relying upon the unimpeached testimony of the survivor.
A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj added that non-examination of the mother of the survivor and another witness who had also arrived at the place of occurrence was not fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that other evidence was consistent with the guilt of the accused.
The bench thus dismissed the accused's appeal challenging a December 1986 judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh.
The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
Briefly put, as per the prosecution's case, on October 7, 1984, the victim, who was below 15 years of age, was grazing her goat near a pigeon pea field in her village.
The accused, who was working in his nearby agricultural field, forcibly lifted her, took her inside the pigeon pea field and raped her, due to which she started bleeding profusely and later fainted.
Upon hearing her screams, independent witnesses, including her mother, arrived at the spot and the accused fled towards his house.
Following the trial, the accused was convicted. Challenging the trial court's order and judgment, the appellant-accused moved the HC.
Before the HC, the Amicus Curiae, appearing for the accused, argued that the accused was falsely implicated at the behest of independent witnesses who harboured a prior enmity with the father of the accused.
It was strongly contended that the prosecution deliberately did not examine the mother of the victim and another witness who allegedly arrived at the spot. It also suggested that the physical injuries suffered by the victim could have been the result of a fall.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench, at the outset, noted that in the complaint, the victim had specifically named the accused-appellant, and the version contained in the FIR was reiterated by the prosecutrix when she appeared as a prosecution witness during trial.
The bench further noted that she was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but her testimony remained unimpeached.
"Merely, because the mother of the prosecutrix and Gayatri Singh, who had also arrived at the place of occurrence were not examined by prosecution would not throw any doubt on the version of the prosecution case, particularly in the light of the testimony of prosecutrix (P.W.-1). As noticed above, the evidence and material witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) have clearly proved the involvement of the accused-appellant in commission of crime, the appellant-accused cannot derive any benefit for non examination of the mother of the prosecutrix and Gayatri Singh," the bench remarked.
The Court also took into account the fact that the bleeding suffered by the victim was proved by the medical evidence beyond doubt. Further, the clothes she was wearing at the time of the occurrence had blood stains, which were also produced before the trial court as case property.
Consequently, the Court did not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Thus, the appeal was rejected.
Case title - Amar Nath Singh vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 204
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 204