Calcutta HC Sets Aside Two Men’s Gang-Rape Convictions, Citing Missing Medical Evidence And Inconsistencies In The Prosecution Case

The victim alleged that, while returning from a music programme on 19 August 2006, she was abducted and raped by the two appellants and an absconding co-accused.

Her father lodged a complaint on 22 August 2006, and the appellants were charged under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s evidence included the victim’s testimony, accounts from her parents and a witness who found her the next morning, and the investigating officer’s evidence.

No complete medical examination report or forensic evidence was produced; witnesses described no bodily injuries, and the mother stated that the victim was menstruating at the time.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. They appealed against the conviction and sentence.

The Court considered Section 376(2)(g) IPC, under which the appellants had been charged and convicted.

The Court stated that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing guilt and that an accused’s failure to suggest or put a denial in cross-examination cannot, by itself, support an inference of guilt.

The Court also recognised that a conviction for rape may rest on the victim’s sole testimony, but said that such testimony must be reliable and consistent with other established facts; it described evidence of “sterling quality” and referred to medical evidence as relevant support.

The Court held that the Trial Court had wrongly treated the defence’s failure to deny the incident in cross-examination as probative of guilt, thereby departing from the prosecution’s burden of proof.

It found the victim’s account insufficiently supported in the circumstances: no complete medical report, evidence of physical or sexual assault, seized clothing, or forensic examination was before the Court.

It also noted the absence of reported injuries, the mother’s evidence that the victim was menstruating, and inconsistencies between the victim’s account and the mother’s account to the doctor.

On the evidence as a whole, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court directed that the appellants be released from custody unless required in another case.

Their release was subject to bonds under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to remain in force for six months.