Vagueness Of FIR & Delay In Lodging It Creates Doubt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 3 In 43-Year-Old Gang Rape Case

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 374 CrPC preferred by the three accused/appellants against the judgment sentencing them to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of rape.

The Single Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena stated, “The vagueness of the FIR is also reflected when only three persons were named in the FIR, though the victim was purportedly raped by four persons. The delay attributed in the FIR also shows that it is not attributed to any fear factor, as the informant was continuously going out even after the incident, then what stops him from lodging the FIR in such a heinous crime.”

“The delay and the prosecution case creates a doubt in the prosecution story. Hence, the accused/appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt because the prosecution evidence is not creating confidence that the accused/appellants have committed rape. Hence, 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”, it added.

Advocate Om Prakash Shukla represented the Appellant, while Additional Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, the informant, who belongs to the scheduled caste, came to his house and found it bolted from the inside. His wife (prosecutrix) informed him, while crying, that she had been raped by the accused persons. The informant and PW-3 saw the three accused (appellants) exiting from the house after opening the door. The informant and witness Banwari saw the victim crying. The FIR was lodged, and the victim was medically examined, wherein it was disclosed that she was 26-28 weeks pregnant. The charge was framed against the accused/appellants for committing rape.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the medico-legal examination report did not show the signs of gang rape. Considering that the entire case relied upon the ocular testimonies of the witnesses, the Bench scrutinised the statements of the witnesses with utmost caution.

The Bench noticed that the accusation was heinous in nature. The informant had not promptly lodged the FIR or taken the victim to the hospital, though she was seven months pregnant and purportedly raped by four persons. “This sounds unnatural. Moreover, the informant mustered courage by threatening of accused, but he remained timid, though his wife being raped. Hence, there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the FIR”, it added.

On a perusal of the statement of three witnesses, namely, the informant/husband of the victim, the victim and the independent witness Banwari (PW-3), the Bench found that the accused/appellants are the neighbours of the informant, and they had never been in the house of the informant before the date of the incident. The Bench further found that there was an altercation between the accused/appellants and Baso regarding the grazing of his goat in the field of the accused, though it was denied by the informant. As per the Bench, it could be a plausible reason for lodging the FIR.

“If the incident of was rape committed by four persons with a pregnant lady having pregnancy of seven months, the rape might have caused grave medical exigency, which was not reflected in the medico legal report. On the contrary, the pregnancy was stated to be normal. There is no mark of injury, even in the hands of the victim”, the order read.

Thus, setting aside the judgment of conviction under Section 376 IPC, the Bench acquitted the appellants.

Cause Title: Hetram and others v. State of U.P (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:105087)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Om Prakash Shukla, Ramanuj Tripathi, S.D.N. Singh, Tej Pal

Respondent: Additional Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order