Inconsistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence necessitates acquittal in gang rape prosecution.

The Appellants, Surajpal and Udai Pal, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, on 16.12.2020 for gang rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376-D and 506 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 8.6.2015, the accused stopped the 14-year-old victim while she was returning with fodder, dragged her into a field, and raped her.

The victim’s father filed the FIR the following day.

During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the victim (P.W.-2) and her parents (P.W.-1 and P.W.-3).

The Appellants contended they were falsely implicated due to a prior grudge involving the elopement of a relative with Appellant Surajpal.

The Trial Court sentenced them to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt despite material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence.

Whether the non-examination of a material eye-witness and the failure to recover physical evidence (torn clothes) vitiates the conviction.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt.

It scrutinized the requirements of Section 376-D (Gang Rape) and Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC.

The Court relied on the evidentiary principle that material contradictions between oral testimony (ocular version) and medical reports can undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, it emphasized the "adverse inference" logic regarding the non-production of the best available evidence, such as independent eye-witnesses or physical exhibits.

The Court found several fatal flaws in the prosecution's narrative.

First, although the victim (P.W.-2) claimed her younger sister witnessed the entire incident and was even tied up by the accused, the police failed to examine her or list her as a witness, providing no explanation for this omission.

Second, while the victim alleged she sustained injuries to her chest and back resulting in bleeding, the medical report (Exb. Ka-3) found no such injuries and noted the hymen was "old torn and healed," directly contradicting the claim of recent forceful rape.

Third, the victim’s claim of returning home naked was contradicted by her parents who stated she wore torn clothes.

The Investigating Officer (P.W.-7) also failed to recover these clothes.

Finally, the Court noted the defense of "false implication" was probable, as the victim admitted during cross-examination that a relative had eloped with Appellant Surajpal, establishing a motive for enmity.

The Court answered the issues in favor of the Appellants, finding that the charges were not proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2020, acquitted Surajpal and Udai Pal of all charges, and ordered their immediate release.