No Medical Evidence, Vague FIR: Allahabad HC Acquits 3 Men In 1983 'Gang-Rape' Case Involving 7-Month Pregnant Woman

A bench of Justice Avnish Saxena granted the accused the 'benefit of the doubt' as it noted that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and a complete lack of corroborating medical evidence.

The Court also termed the FIR as 'vague' as while the victim was purportedly raped by four persons, only three persons were named in the FIR.

"…prosecution evidence is not creating confidence that the accused/appellants have committed rape…they shall be acquitted from the charges as the ocular and documentary evidences does not evinces the involvement of accused appellant in the offence of rape in view of the evidences adduced by the prosecution", the bench observed.

Importantly, the Court observed that if a seven-month pregnant woman had been subjected to gang rape for an hour by 4 men, it would likely have caused a "grave medical exigency," which was not reflected in the medical records.

With this, the bench set aside the May 1984 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura. The appellants, Hetram, Shanker and Bhudat, who were originally convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years, were acquitted.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the prosecution's case was that on May 9, 1983, the informant returned home from grazing his goats to find his house bolted from the inside. Upon jumping the boundary wall, he allegedly saw the three accused fleeing.

His wife (alleged victim), who was seven months pregnant at the time, told him she had been raped by 4 men, including an unknown driver, at knifepoint for nearly an hour.

The FIR was lodged only on May 14, 1983, five days after the alleged incident.

During the trial, the prosecution justified the delay in lodging the FIR on the ground of fear of the informant by the accused/appellants, as the informant was the only Scheduled Caste family in the village.

The trial judge had accepted this reasoning and convicted the accused persons, largely relying on the ocular testimony of the husband, the victim, and an independent witness.

The trial judge had noted that the injuries on the hands of the victim could have dried up, which she suffered due to broken bangles. It was further noted by the trial court that since the victim is habituated to sex (because she is married), no injury was found on her private parts.

HC's observations

The High Court, however, found significant loopholes in the prosecution's case. The Court noted the vagueness of the FIR and that the medical evidence did not support the allegations of a violent gang rape.

In fact, the bench considered that the medico-legal report, conducted 5 days after the alleged incident, showed no marks of injury on the victim's body or private parts. The pathological report confirmed she was 7 months pregnant with a normal pregnancy and no sperm was detected.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalliram Vs. State of MP to note that while physical injury is not a strict prerequisite for proving rape, its absence becomes a critical factor when the prosecutrix's version lacks credibility.

The High Court further dismissed the victim's claim that her hands bled from broken bangles during the assault, as it noted that no broken bangles were recovered by the IO and no such injuries were recorded by the doctor.

Against this backdrop, the bench concluded that the prosecution's evidence failed to inspire confidence. Hence, the Court acquitted the appellants.