Surat Rape Case | 'Contradictions In Victim's Testimony': Narayan Sai Tells Gujarat High Court In Plea Challenging Conviction, Life Term

While arguing his plea challenging his 2019 rape conviction and life sentence, Narayan Sai told the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (March 17) that there were several contradictions, revisions and improvements in the testimony of the prosecutrix which had not been looked at by the trial court. 

Victim had chance to report but did not

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachchani was hearing Narayan Sai's appeal who was convicted by a Sessions Court in Surat for rape of a woman and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

"As per her case she was back to Surat, she was in her comfort zone in her home. She does not report this incident to anyone. By that time she was subjected to such act once. Inspite of that her case is that applicant calls her and asks her to come to the ashram in Surat and she immediately goes to the ashram. Any female who is subjected to such torture would ever go on one call of a person who has treated her like this? Even after sexual exploitation she goes to another ashram where is posted as sanchalika,..there she alleges that third incident has taken place...She was not confined within 4 walls of ashram. She herself states that she to visit office of collector for work of ashram. She had the chance to report to the police, family but nothing of that sort takes place," the petitioner's counsel said.

The counsel said that there was no ring of truth in prosecutrix's evidence and she cannot be considered as witness of sterling quality. She further said that there were certain interested witnesses who had no personal knowledge of the offence alleged, adding that there were further lapses in the investigation which was conducted in a manner only to help and aid the prosecutuion.  She also said that not a single independent witness had been examined by prosecution.

The counsel further said, "It is clearly coming out that after 2004 she had left ashram and was not concerned. What prevented her from not filing the complaint even after 5 months 6 months of leaving ashram when she was safe? Her attending several programs in 2012, 2013, everything shows she was married was settled. Even after her marriage she does not raise her voice immediately. Overall situation, evidence which has come on record clearly suggests that she is a courageous woman. Any woman who is subjected to horrendous incidents would not even like to see face of that man".

Contradictions, improvements, discrepancies 

The counsel said that as per case of prosecution, 6 girls were accompanying the prosecutrix however prosecution has dropped all the material witnesses inspite of fact that Section 161 CrPC statements were recorded.

The counsel submitted that the trial court without independently evaluating the evidence of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses had dealt with defences raised by accused one by one and had negativated all the defences. Without appreciating whether prosecution has proved case beyond reasonable doubt or not the trial court passed the conviction order based on sole testimony of victim, the counsel added.

"There are contradictions, improvements, discrepancies in various versions in FIR as well as her statement in Section 164 CrPC. As well as in her evidence which was given before the hon'ble court...her credibility is impeached by her own evidence the court below refuses to deal with the same...believes whatever has been stated by prosecutrix as gospel truth which has resulted in serious prejudice to applicant...," the counsel said.

She further referred to a chart to argue that there were incongruencies in version of prosecutrix in FIR,  her evidence before the court vis-a-vis evidence of defence witness. 

As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix and her family had participated in a program organized in December, 2001 at Asaram's ashram in Surat. 

It was alleged that on the last day of the program the applicant–son of Asharam, asked the prosecutrix to visit a town in Madhya Pradesh since an ashram was to be built there and the prosecutrix along with the other devotees went to the place.

Thereafter the victim was asked to go to another place in Bihar to help for construction of an ashram there and accordingly she along with the other devotees went there. It was alleged that  applicant on the first day of satsang summoned the prosecutrix in his kutir of the Aashram where he sexually molested her. 

The prosecutrix had also alleged that she travelled to various cities from Bihar at the instance of the applicant and returned to Surat. Thereafter, she alleged that she was asked to visit the applicant in the Surat ashram where she was forced to indulge into the act of unnatural sex with the applicant, was also raped by him.

It was alleged that she had left the ashram in 2004 but she had no courage to report the incidents. However, after Asaram was apprehended in connection with an FIR registered at Jodhpur and after rejection of his bail application by Rajasthan High Court, the prosecutrix mustered the courage to lodge the FIR against the applicant. 

Referring to the sequence of events and allegations, the petitioner's counsel submitted that despite her allegation against Narayan Sai, the prosecutrix continued to go on the tour for months together. 

The counsel said, "As per her case she was first molested in Bihar. At that time she did not raise any alarm. She did not utter a single word on the contrary she continues to go on trip for months together which is totally contrary to the natural conduct of any female. Inspite of the fact that she was molested in the manner that she narrates in her examination in chief...No female would continue to go...inspite of that...one phone call of applicant she goes to another ashram". 

She said that the defence had demonstrated by electronic, oral and documentary evidence that the tour program did not take place in 2002 as alleged by the prosecution but in 2003. 

Referring to the victim's evidence where she alleged that when the incident in Bihar took place, someone had donated land to the applicant the counsel said that the execution of the gift deed was produced before the trial court showing that it was executed in 2003 and not in 2002.  

Delay in hearing of appeal

On the argument regarding delay in hearing of the appeal, the counsel said that there were judicial orders of fixing hearing–11-8-2021, 18-10-2023, 28-11-2024, however the "fact remains that appeal was not heard". "Not anyone's fault but due to pendency of the old appeals before court," the counsel added. 

The court thereafter orally noted that in March 2023 application was filed for early hearing which was not acceded to because if the reason that out of turn is not possible.

"The hearing had not taken place not due to pendency of appeals," the court orally said. 

Meanwhile the counsel while referring to judgments said, "In my case I will argue that there is no fault on part of accused in not getting the appeal heard".

Referring to judgments the counsel further said, "2 or 3 or even 5 occasions I have sought time, cannot give any justification for not hearing my appeal for six years".

At this stage the court said, "Show the instance that despite of order granting temporary bail in your favour, why should the convict challenge this order before the Supreme Court and not a single ground is mentioned in the petition, that why the convict is before the Supreme Court and on what ground? Court is always in protection of right whatever is conferred by the Constitution. No doubt, court is here. At the same time, what is the procedure required by law that is also to be observed by convict who comes court...".

For context, the applicant had moved the Supreme Court in an SLP last year against two orders of the high court court–11-08-2021 and 20-06-2025, passed in two separate applications seeking suspension of sentence. In the 20-6-2025 order the high court had while partly allowing the application granted temporary bail to the applicant for five days. 

The Supreme Court had in its 28-11-2025 order said:

The court orally noted that the petition before the Supreme Court was against order dated 11-08-2021 as well as order dated 20-06-2025, noting that in the latter 5 days temporary bail was granted to the applicant. 

"Supreme Court has not examined validity of order (dt 11-08-2011)...show from your synopsis that this order is not on merits but temporary bail order and despite this we are challenging it," the court orally said. 

Referring to the Supreme Court order of 28-11-2025 the counsel said that the Supreme Court had said that though it had heard arguments for counsel for the petitioner it was inclined to dispose of SLP by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application. 

The court however referred to the last paragraph of the Supreme Court order and asked, "whether did you press the merits of the case? Your emphasis is, though I had sought five times adjournment still I am entitled".

The court also asked the reasons for challenging 11-8-2021 (denying suspension) order which was passed nearly five years ago.

The counsel submitted that the application therein was dismissed on merits. To this the court asked, "then why reference of this 2025 order is referred in the petition? The order was in your favour, when order is in your favour".

The court further orally said, "Once person is claiming right he should perform duty whatever is mandated in procedure". The counsel submitted that liberty had been granted to the applicant and they were in the hands of the court, adding that the counsel had not gone through the SLP.  

As the court asked that instead of filing three applications for suspension of sentence, hearing of appeal could have been pressed the counsel said,"I am appearing for the other two accused. We know how the court is loaded with suspension of sentence matters and other appeals...Duty of executive to appoint more judges to see such backlog gets over. It is humanly not possible". 

After hearing the matter for some time the court listed it for further hearing on March 23.

Sai was convicted by the Sessions Court, Surat on April 30, 2019 for offences punishable under IPC Sections 376(2)(f) (being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman), 376(k) (commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability) 376(n) (commits rape repeatedly on the same woman), 377 (Unnatural Offences), 354 (Assault orCriminal Force to Woman with Intent to Outrage Her Modesty), Section 323(Voluntarily Causing Hurt), Section 504 (Intentional Insult) and Section506(2) (Criminal Intimidation) of Indian Penal Code.

He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and has been incarcerated since December 2013.

Case title: NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

R/CR.A/1756/2019