Hard To Believe That Such Grave Incident Wasn’t Disclosed By Complainant To Her Husband: Supreme Court Grants Acquittal in 1998 Gang Rape Case

The Apex Court was considering a Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court upholding the conviction of the Appellants under Section 376(2)(G) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “We find it hard to believe that such a grave incident was not disclosed by the complainant even to her husband at any point but was done so to a stranger woman who never deposed in front of the court. It is also to be observed that the whole case is based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and no other witnesses or evidence has been produced. We are also of the view that the defence of prior enmity between the parties has also not been properly considered by the courts below and complete weightage has been given to the testimony of the prosecutrix and her emotional out outbursts. There also exists material inconsistencies in her statements that further weakens the case of the prosecution.”

Advocate Sandeep Singh represented the Appellant, while AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 1998 when a written report was submitted by the victim to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, stating that one day, while returning home from the market, the accused appellants Rajendra, Pappu alias Hanuman, Sushil Kumar and Kishan met her. They closed her mouth, shut her eyes with a black handkerchief and raped her after taking her to a nearby plot. After the alleged incident, the accused kept threatening her and she could not file any complaint earlier. An FIR came to be registered under Sections 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all four accused persons.

The Additional District Judge, Dehradun, convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and under Section 506 IPC, and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to six months (concurrent sentences) and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 (and in default S.I. for 6 months). Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellants preferred a Criminal Appeal. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the first and second Accused approached the Apex Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the other two Accused persons passed away.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the complaint was submitted after three months of the occurrence of the alleged incident, and in the meantime, as per the submissions, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to anybody, neither friends nor family nor even her husband, out of shame and ignorance, as mentioned in the complaint. “This version of the prosecutrix is against a natural conduct of the person. It would have been natural for the prosecutrix to disclose the incident to her family members after some time and not to somebody who is unknown to her and as such it is very difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix”, it stated.

The Bench noted that the incident was only disclosed to a woman after three months, when the accused persons again allegedly threatened the prosecutrix that they would pick her up. The statement of this woman was never recorded before the court, even though in the statement of the I.O., it was categorically stated that her statement was recorded at the house of the complainant, along with the statements of the other two witnesses, who were also never produced before the court.

The Bench further held, “It is the trite in law that the conviction can rest on the solitary version of the prosecutrix, provided it inspires confidence of the Court. In the present case, the version of the prosecutrix utterly fails to inspire confidence of this Court.” The Bench also noted that there was no medical evidence, or any other evidence on record, to prove that the accused persons committed the grave act. Thus, in the absence of any reason to hold that the appellants committed the heinous act, the Bench stated, “The material on record does not clearly establish the guilt of the accused person and the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered the release of the accused appellants.

Cause Title: Rajendra & Ors v.State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 238)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Sandeep Singh, AOR Sanchit Garga

Respondent: AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advocates Saakshi Singh Rawat, Sunny Sachin Rawat

Click here to read/download Judgment