The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction of the accused-appellants in a rape case and held that the long delay in holding Test Identification Parade coupled with the fact that the independent witness refused to have witnessed the incident renders the prosecution case doubtful.

The appeals were filed by the accused against the judgment of the Trial Court convicting them in a rape case.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra asserted, “In the present case, delay in identifying the accused in the Court of law when prosecutrix was being examined is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is delay of about 10 months.”

Advocate Santosh Sahu represented the Appellant while Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma represented the Respondent-State.

Factual Background

It was alleged that in the year 2012, the prosecutrix along with her brother visited a temple. While coming back the accused took them inside the jungle on a hillock and then extended threats. Thereafter, the accused persons took the prosecutrix elsewhere and committed rape one after another. It was submitted that since her brother was under the custody of the remaining accused persons, she was helpless. During the performance of the illegal act, the prosecutrix protested as a result of which, she lost her anklet. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Section 376 (2)(g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons on a written complaint and thereafter, the appellants were arrested along with other co-accused persons.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the cousin brother of the prosecutrix, who was a witness, had admitted that he mentioned certain things on his own volition and certain things were written as per the instructions of the police personnel. He further admitted that he had not seen the incident taking place. “This admission of the independent prosecution witness who was admittedly present at the time of incident that he had not seen the incident makes the whole prosecution story doubtful”, the Bench said.

The Bench further held, “Thus, in view of the fact that no TIP was carried out immediately on the arrest of the accused persons and thereafter, after lapse of about 10 months time, prosecutrix identified the accused persons in the Court and that too she was not firm on her identification, and looking to the evidence of PW-7 that he had not seen the incident taking place though he happens to be the author of hand written report Ex.P-4, by Dayaram signed by prosecutrix, it is evident that it is a case of false implication and prosecution failed to prove the case.”

The Bench explained that not only identification in the Court was faulty and delayed but the independent witness categorically stated that he had not witnessed the incident. This led to the conclusion that there was no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix though she claimed that the witness was present.“In the present case, considering entire evidence carefully, it is quite manifest that long delay in holding Test Identification Parade coupled with other infirmities and inconsistencies as pointed out above, renders the prosecution case doubtful”, the Bench remarked.

Reiterating that conviction cannot be upheld merely on surmises and conjunctures, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused-appellants.

Cause Title: Sanju Sonkar Alias Sanju Khatik v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:1296)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Santosh Sahu, J.K. Dwivedi

Respondent: Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma

Click here to read/download Order