Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 238
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 264 OF 2015
RAJENDRA & ORS ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellants challenging the Judgment and order dated 28.09.2012
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
Appeal No. 911 of 2001. The appellants had approached the High
Court in appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the
Judgment and order dated 31.03.2000/03.04.2000 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2026.03.13
16:04:42 IST
Reason:
No. 80 of 1999 wherein the appellants were convicted under
1
Section 376(2)(G) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-
along with 6 months rigorous imprisonment u/s 506 IPC, running
concurrently. The High Court in appeal upheld the conviction
awarded by the Trial Court.
Factual Matrix
2. As per the prosecution story, on 31.07.1998, a written report
was submitted by the victim to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dehradun stating that on 07.04.1998 around 7:30pm while she
was on her way back home from the market in Sanjay Colony, four
people i.e. the appellants Rajendra, Pappu alias Hanuman, Sushil
Kumar and Kishan met her. They closed her mouth and shut her
eyes with a black handkerchief and raped her turn by turn after
taking her to a nearby plot. After the alleged incident, she stated
in the complaint, the accused kept threatening her because of
which she could not file any complaint earlier. Based on this
complaint, FIR/ Crime No. 315 of 1998 was registered at the P.S
Dalanwala under Sections 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) against all four
accused. On receipt of the F.I.R., investigating agency was set in
2
motion. After the completion of investigation, final report/charge
sheet was submitted against accused persons for the charges
under Sections 376(2)(g), 427, 506 IPC on 27.10.1999. All the four
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial wherein after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence recorded, the
Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.T. No. 80 of 1999 vide
judgement and order dated 31.03.2000 and 03.04.2000 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 Criminal Appeal No 911 of 2001 under
Section 374 Cr.P.C before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital wherein the High Court finding no merit in the appeal
dismissed the same vide order dated 28.09.2012. In dismissing
the appeal, the Hon’ble High Court observed that considering the
nature of the crime and the manner in which it had been
committed, there could have been no other witness except the
victim herself and held that the statement given by the victim was
trustworthy and nothing creates any reasonable doubt in it. The
3
High Court further observed that the delay in registering the FIR
was explained by the victim. The accused were known to her and
thus she had no difficulty in identifying them.
3. Aggrieved by the High Court order, Accused no. 1 and 2 have
challenged the same before us. During the pendency of the present
appeal, Accused no. 3 and 4 have passed away.
Submissions
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that there are material contradictions in the FIR and in
the statement given by the prosecutrix. Firstly, it is submitted that
the FIR had been lodged after 3 months and 24 days of the alleged
incident and no cogent explanation has been supplied for the
delay. The reason mentioned in the FIR is ignorance and
embarrassment however in her statement given to PW-2 she stated
that she did not lodge the same because of fear. She also did not
disclose the incident to anyone in the family due to fear. Only later
she told an unknown woman about the same whose identity she
was not able to recollect.
5. Secondly, it is submitted that as per the record, the report of
the incident was written by one Jagjeevan Jot Singh but according
to the evidence of the Prosecutrix the report was written with the
4
help of an unknown woman. The counsel submitted that the scribe
of the FIR was not produced in the court to verify if the same was
written by her or not. The site plan produced in the court was not
signed or verified by the person who wrote the FIR.
6. Thirdly, it has been submitted that there existed previous
enmity of the prosecutrix with the accused on account of a water
dispute for which an earlier complaint dated 02.07.1998 lodged
with the police was also brought to the notice of the Investigating
officer. The counsel submitted that it is because of the same that
she has concocted this false story to frame the accused persons. It
is submitted that the brother in law of the prosecutrix had also
stated in court confirming the enmity of the water dispute and had
stated that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was at home
and that the accused have been falsely implicated.
7. Fourthly, the learned counsel averred that the account of the
prosecutrix as recorded in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C
and in the FIR contain various discrepancies. The prosecutrix
deposed in her statement that she was taken to a plot where the
incident took place whereas in the FIR it is mentioned that the
incident took place in a room. It is also submitted that in her
statement the prosecutrix had mentioned that the bulb of her
5
house was broken by the accused whereas the I.O stated there was
no electricity in the house of the prosecutrix and thus there could
be no bulb either. Further, it is submitted that in her statement
she submitted that her house is 2-3 kms. away from the place of
incident whereas as per the I.O the site of incident was hardly 15-
20 steps away. Ld. Counsel also submitted that in her statement
the prosecutrix mentioned that the investigation was carried out
by the I.O at the Police Station and that the place of occurrence
was showed to him in the presence of one Rahees Fatima, whereas
the I.O stated that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded
on 01.08.1989 in her house and that nobody accompanied when
the complainant showed the place of occurrence to the I.O.
8. Fifthly, the learned counsel posited his submission that the
alleged incident took place in summer around 7:30 pm in the
evening near a densely populated area, and that it is unlikely that
there were no bystanders or witnesses who saw the accused
persons picking up the prosecutrix and taking her to the site of the
incident. He further submitted that it is also unlikely that the
prosecutrix did not cry or shout or resist to attract the attention of
people around when her mouth was being allegedly shut by the
accused persons.
6
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the
case of the prosecution has been supported by only two witnesses
out of which one is the prosecutrix herself and the other is the I.O,
and that no other witnesses have been produced. Further, as per
the claim of the prosecutrix she narrated the incident to one
Rahees Fatima but her evidence was also never recorded. The
learned counsel submitted that the High Court has given undue
weightage to the emotional outburst of the prosecutrix in camera
proceedings, and that her statements suffering from glare
inconsistencies does not inspire any confidence to be taken as
genuine.
10. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Respondent State
submitted that the necessary ingredients of rape are very well
covered in the oral evidence of prosecutrix before the Court. The
counsel submitted that the victim stated on oath that after
finishing her work as a maid servant, she went to the market and
was coming back home from there when the four accused caught
hold of her and from behind placed a black handkerchief on her
mouth and then took her to a room which belonged to the
Pradhan- Sri Kaloo who is the brother of the accused Rajendra.
Inside the room, they committed rape on her one by one against
7
her will and consent. After the incident, they threatened to kill her
if she disclosed the incident to anyone. One of the accused Kishan
also had a knife with him. It is submitted that the accused also
teased her and would threaten her afterwards, and on account of
shame and fear, she could not lodge the report immediately. After
three months- when the accused broke the bulb of her house, she
could gather some courage to submit the complaint/report.
11. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that
during the cross examination, the prosecutrix clarified that
accused persons were known to her from before, as they were from
the same vicinity and the same village. It is also submitted by the
counsel that the plot alleged in the report has one room in it where
the crime was committed.
12. The learned counsel contended that the High Court had
rightly upheld the conviction of the accused, and as no question of
law or fact has been raised by the Petitioner. The appeal is thus
liable to be dismissed.
Analysis
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and with their assistance, we have also gone through the records
of the case. We have also perused the evidence on record. On giving
8
due consideration to the material on record, we find that the
prosecution failed to establish its case against accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt.
14. 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 and not 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. The incident was only
disclosed to a woman named Rahees Fatima after three months
when the accused persons again allegedly threatened the
prosecutrix that they will pick her up. The statement of Rahees
Fatima was never recorded before the court even though in the
statement of PW-2 I.O. it has been categorically stated that her
statement was recorded at the house of the complainant along with
the statements of the other two witnesses, Mohd. Salim and Smt.
Chandra Sharma were also never produced before the court. We
9
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 outbursts. There
also exists material inconsistencies in her statements that further
weakens the case of the prosecution.
15. 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.
16. This court in the case of Vijayan vs. State of Kerala (2008) 14
SCC 763 dealt with similar facts to the extent that the entire case
of the prosecutrix was based on her testimony and there was a
delay of 7 months in lodging the FIR, and no other evidence was
available on record. The court in the case held that-
“5. The present case wholly depends upon the testimony of the prosecutrix.
The incident in the present case took place seven months prior to the date of
10
lodging the complaint as a realisation dawned upon her that she has been
subjected to rape by the appellant-accused. No complaint or grievance was
made either to the police or the parents prior thereto. The explanation for
delay in lodging the FIR is that the appellant-accused promised her to marry
therefore the FIR was not filed. In cases where the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix is available, it is very dangerous to convict the accused, specially
when the prosecutrix could venture to wait for seven months for filing the FIR
for rape. This leaves the accused totally defenceless. Had the prosecutrix
lodged the complaint soon after the incident, there would have been some
supporting evidence like the medical report or any other injury on the body of
the prosecutrix so as to show the sign of rape. If the prosecutrix has willingly
submitted herself to sexual intercourse and waited for seven months for filing
the FIR it will be very hazardous to convict on such sole oral testimony.
Moreover, no DNA test was conducted to find out whether the child was born
out of the said incident of rape and that the appellant-accused was responsible
for the said child. In the face of lack of any other evidence, it is unsafe to
convict the accused. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by
the trial court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court in convicting
the appellant-accused under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained.
Consequently, we set aside the judgment and order of the trial court as also of
the High Court and quash the conviction and sentence of the appellant-
accused under Section 376 IPC. The accused may be released forthwith from
custody if not required in any other case.”
17. It is safe to say that even in the case at hand, there is no
medical evidence, or any other evidence on record to prove that the
accused persons committed the grave act. The ratio in the case of
Vijayan (supra) squarely covers the case at hand. We, therefore, do
not find any reason whatsoever to hold that the appellants
committed the heinous act. 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. We therefore allow
the present appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the
High Court.
11
18. In view of the above, present appeal is disposed of and the
conviction of the appellants is thus set aside. The appellants to be
released immediately if not convicted under any other offence.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of
accordingly.
........................................J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 13, 2026.
12
2026 INSC 238
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 264 OF 2015
RAJENDRA & ORS ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellants challenging the Judgment and order dated 28.09.2012
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
Appeal No. 911 of 2001. The appellants had approached the High
Court in appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the
Judgment and order dated 31.03.2000/03.04.2000 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2026.03.13
16:04:42 IST
Reason:
No. 80 of 1999 wherein the appellants were convicted under
1
Section 376(2)(G) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-
along with 6 months rigorous imprisonment u/s 506 IPC, running
concurrently. The High Court in appeal upheld the conviction
awarded by the Trial Court.
Factual Matrix
2. As per the prosecution story, on 31.07.1998, a written report
was submitted by the victim to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dehradun stating that on 07.04.1998 around 7:30pm while she
was on her way back home from the market in Sanjay Colony, four
people i.e. the appellants Rajendra, Pappu alias Hanuman, Sushil
Kumar and Kishan met her. They closed her mouth and shut her
eyes with a black handkerchief and raped her turn by turn after
taking her to a nearby plot. After the alleged incident, she stated
in the complaint, the accused kept threatening her because of
which she could not file any complaint earlier. Based on this
complaint, FIR/ Crime No. 315 of 1998 was registered at the P.S
Dalanwala under Sections 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) against all four
accused. On receipt of the F.I.R., investigating agency was set in
2
motion. After the completion of investigation, final report/charge
sheet was submitted against accused persons for the charges
under Sections 376(2)(g), 427, 506 IPC on 27.10.1999. All the four
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial wherein after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence recorded, the
Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.T. No. 80 of 1999 vide
judgement and order dated 31.03.2000 and 03.04.2000 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 Criminal Appeal No 911 of 2001 under
Section 374 Cr.P.C before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital wherein the High Court finding no merit in the appeal
dismissed the same vide order dated 28.09.2012. In dismissing
the appeal, the Hon’ble High Court observed that considering the
nature of the crime and the manner in which it had been
committed, there could have been no other witness except the
victim herself and held that the statement given by the victim was
trustworthy and nothing creates any reasonable doubt in it. The
3
High Court further observed that the delay in registering the FIR
was explained by the victim. The accused were known to her and
thus she had no difficulty in identifying them.
3. Aggrieved by the High Court order, Accused no. 1 and 2 have
challenged the same before us. During the pendency of the present
appeal, Accused no. 3 and 4 have passed away.
Submissions
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that there are material contradictions in the FIR and in
the statement given by the prosecutrix. Firstly, it is submitted that
the FIR had been lodged after 3 months and 24 days of the alleged
incident and no cogent explanation has been supplied for the
delay. The reason mentioned in the FIR is ignorance and
embarrassment however in her statement given to PW-2 she stated
that she did not lodge the same because of fear. She also did not
disclose the incident to anyone in the family due to fear. Only later
she told an unknown woman about the same whose identity she
was not able to recollect.
5. Secondly, it is submitted that as per the record, the report of
the incident was written by one Jagjeevan Jot Singh but according
to the evidence of the Prosecutrix the report was written with the
4
help of an unknown woman. The counsel submitted that the scribe
of the FIR was not produced in the court to verify if the same was
written by her or not. The site plan produced in the court was not
signed or verified by the person who wrote the FIR.
6. Thirdly, it has been submitted that there existed previous
enmity of the prosecutrix with the accused on account of a water
dispute for which an earlier complaint dated 02.07.1998 lodged
with the police was also brought to the notice of the Investigating
officer. The counsel submitted that it is because of the same that
she has concocted this false story to frame the accused persons. It
is submitted that the brother in law of the prosecutrix had also
stated in court confirming the enmity of the water dispute and had
stated that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was at home
and that the accused have been falsely implicated.
7. Fourthly, the learned counsel averred that the account of the
prosecutrix as recorded in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C
and in the FIR contain various discrepancies. The prosecutrix
deposed in her statement that she was taken to a plot where the
incident took place whereas in the FIR it is mentioned that the
incident took place in a room. It is also submitted that in her
statement the prosecutrix had mentioned that the bulb of her
5
house was broken by the accused whereas the I.O stated there was
no electricity in the house of the prosecutrix and thus there could
be no bulb either. Further, it is submitted that in her statement
she submitted that her house is 2-3 kms. away from the place of
incident whereas as per the I.O the site of incident was hardly 15-
20 steps away. Ld. Counsel also submitted that in her statement
the prosecutrix mentioned that the investigation was carried out
by the I.O at the Police Station and that the place of occurrence
was showed to him in the presence of one Rahees Fatima, whereas
the I.O stated that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded
on 01.08.1989 in her house and that nobody accompanied when
the complainant showed the place of occurrence to the I.O.
8. Fifthly, the learned counsel posited his submission that the
alleged incident took place in summer around 7:30 pm in the
evening near a densely populated area, and that it is unlikely that
there were no bystanders or witnesses who saw the accused
persons picking up the prosecutrix and taking her to the site of the
incident. He further submitted that it is also unlikely that the
prosecutrix did not cry or shout or resist to attract the attention of
people around when her mouth was being allegedly shut by the
accused persons.
6
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the
case of the prosecution has been supported by only two witnesses
out of which one is the prosecutrix herself and the other is the I.O,
and that no other witnesses have been produced. Further, as per
the claim of the prosecutrix she narrated the incident to one
Rahees Fatima but her evidence was also never recorded. The
learned counsel submitted that the High Court has given undue
weightage to the emotional outburst of the prosecutrix in camera
proceedings, and that her statements suffering from glare
inconsistencies does not inspire any confidence to be taken as
genuine.
10. Per contra , the learned counsel for the Respondent State
submitted that the necessary ingredients of rape are very well
covered in the oral evidence of prosecutrix before the Court. The
counsel submitted that the victim stated on oath that after
finishing her work as a maid servant, she went to the market and
was coming back home from there when the four accused caught
hold of her and from behind placed a black handkerchief on her
mouth and then took her to a room which belonged to the
Pradhan- Sri Kaloo who is the brother of the accused Rajendra.
Inside the room, they committed rape on her one by one against
7
her will and consent. After the incident, they threatened to kill her
if she disclosed the incident to anyone. One of the accused Kishan
also had a knife with him. It is submitted that the accused also
teased her and would threaten her afterwards, and on account of
shame and fear, she could not lodge the report immediately. After
three months- when the accused broke the bulb of her house, she
could gather some courage to submit the complaint/report.
11. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that
during the cross examination, the prosecutrix clarified that
accused persons were known to her from before, as they were from
the same vicinity and the same village. It is also submitted by the
counsel that the plot alleged in the report has one room in it where
the crime was committed.
12. The learned counsel contended that the High Court had
rightly upheld the conviction of the accused, and as no question of
law or fact has been raised by the Petitioner. The appeal is thus
liable to be dismissed.
Analysis
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and with their assistance, we have also gone through the records
of the case. We have also perused the evidence on record. On giving
8
due consideration to the material on record, we find that the
prosecution failed to establish its case against accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt.
14. 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 and not 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. The incident was only
disclosed to a woman named Rahees Fatima after three months
when the accused persons again allegedly threatened the
prosecutrix that they will pick her up. The statement of Rahees
Fatima was never recorded before the court even though in the
statement of PW-2 I.O. it has been categorically stated that her
statement was recorded at the house of the complainant along with
the statements of the other two witnesses, Mohd. Salim and Smt.
Chandra Sharma were also never produced before the court. We
9
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 outbursts. There
also exists material inconsistencies in her statements that further
weakens the case of the prosecution.
15. 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.
16. This court in the case of Vijayan vs. State of Kerala (2008) 14
SCC 763 dealt with similar facts to the extent that the entire case
of the prosecutrix was based on her testimony and there was a
delay of 7 months in lodging the FIR, and no other evidence was
available on record. The court in the case held that-
“5. The present case wholly depends upon the testimony of the prosecutrix.
The incident in the present case took place seven months prior to the date of
10
lodging the complaint as a realisation dawned upon her that she has been
subjected to rape by the appellant-accused. No complaint or grievance was
made either to the police or the parents prior thereto. The explanation for
delay in lodging the FIR is that the appellant-accused promised her to marry
therefore the FIR was not filed. In cases where the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix is available, it is very dangerous to convict the accused, specially
when the prosecutrix could venture to wait for seven months for filing the FIR
for rape. This leaves the accused totally defenceless. Had the prosecutrix
lodged the complaint soon after the incident, there would have been some
supporting evidence like the medical report or any other injury on the body of
the prosecutrix so as to show the sign of rape. If the prosecutrix has willingly
submitted herself to sexual intercourse and waited for seven months for filing
the FIR it will be very hazardous to convict on such sole oral testimony.
Moreover, no DNA test was conducted to find out whether the child was born
out of the said incident of rape and that the appellant-accused was responsible
for the said child. In the face of lack of any other evidence, it is unsafe to
convict the accused. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by
the trial court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court in convicting
the appellant-accused under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained.
Consequently, we set aside the judgment and order of the trial court as also of
the High Court and quash the conviction and sentence of the appellant-
accused under Section 376 IPC. The accused may be released forthwith from
custody if not required in any other case.”
17. It is safe to say that even in the case at hand, there is no
medical evidence, or any other evidence on record to prove that the
accused persons committed the grave act. The ratio in the case of
Vijayan (supra) squarely covers the case at hand. We, therefore, do
not find any reason whatsoever to hold that the appellants
committed the heinous act. 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. We therefore allow
the present appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the
High Court.
11
18. In view of the above, present appeal is disposed of and the
conviction of the appellants is thus set aside. The appellants to be
released immediately if not convicted under any other offence.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of
accordingly.
........................................J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 13, 2026.
12