Material contradictions and unexplained FIR delay creating reasonable doubt warrant acquittal.

The appellants were convicted by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, under Sections 147 and 376 IPC and sentenced to one year’s and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively

The prosecution alleged that, on the night of 17 October 1983, four named accused and two other men entered the victims’ home and raped two women. The FIR was lodged six days later, on 23 October 1983

The medical examinations disclosed no recent injuries or spermatozoa, and the victims did not provide the clothes allegedly torn during the incident

Appellant Mohd. Anis Khan’s appeal abated following his death; the appeal continued as to Sirajul, Chhotey Lal and Fakku

1. Whether the prosecution proved the surviving appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the six-day delay in lodging the FIR and the inconsistencies and improvements in the victims’ accounts

2. Whether the medical and other evidence, considered with the victims’ testimony, supported the convictions

The Court considered the charges and convictions under Sections 147 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the registration of the FIR under Section 154 CrPC

It applied the principle that delay in lodging an FIR is not inherently fatal, particularly in sexual-offence cases, but may undermine the prosecution when it is unexplained or inadequately explained

It also recognised that a prosecutrix’s credible and reliable testimony may alone sustain a conviction, and that absence of injury, medical corroboration or independent eyewitnesses is not by itself decisive; however, material inconsistencies and improvements require careful assessment against the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard

The Court cited *Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra* (2007) 2 SCC 170; *Babu Ram v. State of Punjab* (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 727; *Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab* (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 66; *Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra* (1984) 4 SCC 116; *Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana* (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 61; *Kuldeep Yadav v. State of Bihar* (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 632; and the authorities identified as *Balku Oram v. State of Odisha* and *Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra v. State of Madhya Pradesh*

The Court found the six-day reporting delay inadequately explained, particularly because PW-1 said her father-in-law had approached the police the morning after the incident and that Anis was arrested before the FIR was lodged

The initial complaint omitted the names of the two alleged accomplices, while the witnesses later attributed them significant roles; the victims’ accounts also diverged on the sequence of events, restraint of family members, threats and whether clothing was removed or torn

No clothes were produced, and the medical evidence showed no recent injury or spermatozoa; the Court treated these matters not as independently disproving rape, but as relevant cumulatively with the testimonial inconsistencies

PW-3 was not an eyewitness to the alleged assaults, and PW-4 did not support the prosecution

Taken together, the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The appeal against Mohd. Anis Khan remained abated.

The surviving appellants’ bail bonds were cancelled and their sureties discharged, subject to compliance with Section 437-A CrPC, as applicable