“Should Have Been Some Injuries If Five Accused Had Committed Rape”: Patna High Court Acquits Four, Sets Aside 22-Yr-Old's Conviction
Image By: Siddharth Anand
The Patna High Court has acquitted four men convicted of gang rape, observing that if five accused had committed rape upon the victim one after another, there should have been some injuries on her body.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy set aside the 2004 conviction after finding that the medical evidence did not corroborate the oral testimony and that there were major discrepancies in the prosecution case.
The appeal arose from a 1998 case in which five men were accused of gang-raping the prosecutrix. The trial court convicted them under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000 each. The appeal had remained pending since 2004. As there was no assistance from counsel for the appellants, the High Court appointed Advocate Surya Nilambari as Amicus Curiae in September 2024. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants died and the proceedings against him abated. The appeal thereafter continued in respect of the remaining four.
According to the prosecution, the victim and her niece were working as cooks at Fakirana Holy Cross and had returned to their village. On the intervening night of May 17-18, 1998, the accused allegedly came to the victim's house and asked her and her niece to accompany them to attend a Panchayat. After proceeding some distance, the accused allegedly forcibly took them towards an orchard. While the niece managed to escape, the five accused allegedly raped the victim one after another. The victim informed her family about the incident, following which a Panchayat was convened. When no settlement could be reached, she lodged a complaint with the police.
Before the High Court, the Amicus Curiae argued that the prosecution version could not be believed as the medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's oral testimony and the place of occurrence had also not been established.
The Court found that the medical evidence did not corroborate the testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. It also noted that the doctor who examined the victim had not been examined by the prosecution. The Court observed:
“If at all the five accused had committed the offence of rape, there should have been some injuries found on the body of the victim. Further, the Doctor was not examined, for reasons best known to the prosecution. The cardinal principle of criminal law is that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and until such guilt is established, the accused is presumed to be innocent.”
The Court further found major discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which went to the root of the case. It held that the victim's testimony, in the circumstances of the case, was not sufficient to establish guilt as it was not corroborated by material evidence. It also found that the prosecution had failed to establish the place and time of the alleged incident. The witnesses gave contradictory accounts regarding the timing of the Panchayat, referring to it as having taken place in the evening, after dinner and at midnight.
The Court also expressed doubt over the prosecution version that a village Panchayat was held between 12 and 12.30 AM, for which the victim and her niece were allegedly called. The High Court additionally noted a discrepancy in the charge framed against the appellants. While the charge was initially framed under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellants were ultimately convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. It found that the substance stated in the charge and the provision mentioned therein were contradictory.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the four surviving appellants.
Case Title: Shaymdeo Uraon and Ors v. State of Bihar
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.320 of 2004
Appearance:
For the Appellants: Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae
For the State: Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP