Widow’s Prompt FIR And Eyewitness Account Persuade Allahabad HC To Uphold 7-Year Rape Sentence

In brief

The question

Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the interval between the incident and FIR, the absence of visible injuries, and the challenge to medical corroboration.

The court held

The High Court held that the complainant’s testimony, corroborated by PW-2, proved the prosecution case and disclosed no material basis to disturb the trial court’s findings.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC.

The appellant’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence, with any time already served to be credited.

01Facts

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000, imposed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda.

¶ 2

The prosecution alleged that at about noon on 28 May 1986, the appellant raped the complainant, a widow and mother of two, while she was returning from a field; Bhikhari (PW-2) testified that he arrived after hearing her cries and saw the appellant committing the offence.

¶ 7, 15, 26

The FIR was lodged that evening, and the medical examination took place the following day.

¶ 7, 16

The defence relied on the reporting interval, absence of visible injuries, lack of medical corroboration, alleged inconsistencies, the investigation, and an alibi witness.

¶ 3, 34–36

02Issues

i.Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the interval between the incident and FIR, the absence of visible injuries, and the challenge to medical corroboration.

¶ 18–20, 40–41

ii.Whether the testimony of the complainant, supported by PW-2, was sufficiently credible despite the alleged inconsistencies, challenges to PW-2’s presence, and the defence evidence of alibi and investigative unfairness.

¶ 26–37, 40–41

03Law Applied

Under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 2, 39

The court applied the principles that an FIR is not substantive evidence and may be used to corroborate or contradict its maker’s account (Dharmendra Kumar alias Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh); a properly explained delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal (Gurdeep v. State of Madhya Pradesh); and the non-examination of a doctor is not necessarily fatal (Mukul Mahto v. State of Jharkhand).

¶ 11–13

It also relied on the principles that trustworthy ocular evidence may prevail over medical evidence and that corroboration need not be exact (Mallapa Siddappa Alakanur v. State of Karnataka; Leela Ram v. State of Haryana).

¶ 14

Under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required; the quality and credibility of the evidence govern, and a reliable witness’s testimony may support conviction.

¶ 31–32

Minor discrepancies that do not go to the root of the case are not decisive.

¶ 30

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The court accepted the complainant’s explanation that she first returned home to arrange care for her young daughter and then travelled to the police station, noting her circumstances and the distance involved; it therefore found the same-day FIR prompt and the interval adequately explained.

¶ 18–20

It considered her account consistent and credible, and found PW-2’s testimony that he heard her cries and saw the appellant committing the offence corroborative.

¶ 22, 26–29

The court held that the absence of visible injuries and the lack of further medical corroboration did not displace the accepted eyewitness evidence.

¶ 13–14, 19, 27

It found the alleged discrepancies immaterial, the alibi evidence insufficient because DW-1 placed the appellant at home only at about 4 p.m., and the investigation’s alleged defects insufficient to undermine credible evidence of the occurrence.

¶ 30, 33–37

05Holding

The High Court held that the complainant’s testimony, corroborated by PW-2, proved the prosecution case and disclosed no material basis to disturb the trial court’s findings.

¶ 40–41

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC.

¶ 42

The appellant’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence, with any time already served to be credited.

¶ 42–43

LawLens.Allahabad High Court

Original Court PDF