Allahabad High Court
Munna And Others vs State Of U.P. on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208600
Reserved on 7.11.2025
Delivered on 21.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 607 of 1984
Munna And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Arimardan Yadav, Jadu Nandan Yadav, Rama Shankar Shukla, Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, Sri Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Babita Upadhyay, learned Amicus Curiae and learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 23.2.1984 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No.273 of 1983, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
a. appellant- Munna was sentenced to one year RI under Sections 452, 368 IPC, and three years RI under Sections 366, 376 IPC
b. appellants -Jai Narain, Surra @ Surendra and Satish Chandra were sentenced to three years RI under Section 366 IPC, one year RI under Section 368 IPC, and three years RI under Section 376 IPC;
c. appellants ? Janmed, Diwan Singh, Bhawar Singh, Basu Deo and Lakhan were sentenced to six months RI under Section 353 IPC.
3. It is to be noted that the appeal was declared abated by the previous orders of this Court against the appellant no.5- Surra @ Surendra Singh, appellant no.6-Satish Chandra, appellant no.-8-Bhawar Singh and appellant no.-9-Janmed.
Factual Matrix of Case
4. A written complaint (Ex. Ka-1) was lodged on 21 March 1983 by PW-2 Constable Babu Nigam. On said date, he alongwith Constables Ram Kumar, Dharam Singh, Bhagwan Singh, and Vishambhar Pal Singh, was present at the Police Outpost Garsan. At around 8:00 a.m., victim, wife of Rajveer Singh Yadav, resident of Garsan, arrived at the police outpost Garsan and told them she had been gang-raped by four persons. PW-2 Babu Nigam recorded her statement in the First Information Report (FIR).
5. The victim, aged about 17 years, stated that she was unhappy with her husband's behaviour. On the night of 18?19 March 1983, at about 3:00 a.m., the accused?Munna, Satish, Jai Narayan, and Suresh @ Surra came to her house, assured her of dropping her at her maternal home in Gokulpur (as her husband was treating her cruelly), and took her alongwith them under false pretenses.
6. Instead of dropping her at her maternal home, they took her to the fields of Harbhan Singh near village Pokhar, where wheat crop was standing. There, all four accused committed rape upon her. In the morning, accused Surra and Munna went to the village while Satish and Jai Narayan stayed back to guard her. In the evening, Surra and Munna returned with food and water, which the victim refused. The accused threatened her, forced her to eat, and again raped her that night. On the morning of 20 March 1983, Satish and Jai Narayan left for the village, leaving Munna and Surra to watch her. In the evening, Satish and Jai Narayan came back with food, water, and clothes (a blouse, petticoat, and dhoti) for her. That night, the accused again committed rape.
7. Subsequently, the victim was moved to the field of the Pradhan of Fatehpur, where arhar crops were standing. Though she was unwilling to go, she was threatened and forced to go. She was raped again in that field. On the morning of 21 March 1983, Munna and Surra went to the village while Satish and Jai Narayan stayed behind. The clothes she had been wearing on previous nights were removed, and the new clothes brought by the accused were put on her. Later, when Satish and Jai Narayan went out to attend to nature's call, she got an opportunity to escape and reached the police outpost around 8:00 a.m. She reported her ordeal to the informant and other constables and requested to be taken to the police station.
8. The informant further stated that preparations were underway to escort the victim to Police Station Nagla Khanger around 10:00 a.m. when accused Janmed Singh and Diwan Singh arrived. They spoke to the victim, and soon after, a crowd of around 40?50 villagers gathered at the outpost. When constables told them that they were taking the victim to the Police Station, Janmed Singh and Diwan Singh objected, claiming it was a matter of village pride and that they would not allow her to go, even if gunfire occurred. Thereafter, the group forcibly seized the victim from police custody and took her towards the village, despite warnings from the informant and the constables not to interfere with official duties. Before leaving, they threatened that any resistance would lead to the killing of the informant and others.
9. Based on this written report by PW-2 Babu Nigam, an FIR was registered at Police Station Nagla Khanger, District Mainpuri, at 3:10 p.m. on 21 March 1983 as Case Crime No. 24 of 1983 under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, and 353 IPC.
10. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. M.P. Gautam, who proceeded to village Garsan, recovered the victim from her husband's house, and prepared a recovery memo (Ex. Ka-5). He collected the petticoat and dhoti of the victim, and prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka-10). He also drew site plans (Ex. Ka-6, Ex. Ka-7, and Ex. Ka-8) of the victim's house, the wheat field, and the arhar field respectively.
11. Additionally, he inspected the police outpost from where the victim had been forcibly taken away from the custody of PW-2 and other constables. During the investigation, he arrested the accused persons and recorded statements of witnesses.
12. The victim was sent to the Civil Hospital, Mainpuri, where PW-5 Dr. Usha Pradhan medically examined her on 22 March 1983 and prepared the medical report (Ex. Ka-4). She was also sent for X-ray examination. Upon completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheets as follows:
- Against all accused persons on 29 April, 1983 (Ex. Ka-11)
- Against Vasudev, Lakhan Singh, Munna, and Jai Narayan on 20 May, 1983
- Against Vasudev and Lakhan on 9 July, 1983
13. The clothes of the victim (Ex. Ka-10) were sent for chemical examination, and its report (Ex. C-1) was submitted accordingly.
14. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed against accused Satish, Surra alias Surendra, Jai Narayan, and Munna under Sections 452, 366, 368, and 376 IPC. Charges under Section 353 IPC against accused Diwan Singh, Janmed Singh, Vasudev, Lakhan, and Bhawar Singh. The prosecution examined the following witnesses:
1. PW-1: Constable Ram Kumar Yadav
2. PW-2: Complainant Constable Babu Nigam
3. PW-3: The victim
4. PW-4: Head Constable Jagdish Prashad (who recorded the FIR)
5. PW-5: Dr. Usha Pradhan (Medical Officer)
6. PW-6: S.I. Mahendra Pal Gautam (Investigating Officer)
15. PW-3, the victim, reiterated the version stated in the FIR. She deposed that accused Munna, Satish, Jai Narayan and Surra @ Surendra came to her house on the night of the alleged incident, around 3 a.m., while she was sleeping on the chabutara. They promised her that they would take her to her maternal home as her husband was mistreating her. Believing them, she accompanied them. The accused took her to the fields of Harbhan Singh, where wheat crops were standing. There, all of them committed rape upon her. The next morning, Munna and Surra went to the village to bring food and water, while Satish and Jai Narayan stayed behind to guard her. She further stated she was repeatedly raped by all the accused over the next two days. During this time, she was also shifted to another field belonging to the Pradhan of Fatehpur, where arhar crops were standing. In the evening of Sunday, accused brought new clothes for her.
16. She further stated that she got an opportunity to escape from the custody of accused and went directly to the police outpost to lodge a complaint. She narrated the entire incident to PW-2 Babu Nigam, who was present there along with PW-1 Constable Ram Kumar Yadav. She further stated that while the constables were preparing to take her to the police station, the accused Janmed and Diwan Singh arrived there and started talking her. In meanwhile, crowd of 40-50 people gathered and stopped the police from taking her away. When the constables refused their demand, the accused forcibly took her away again. The statements of PW-1 Ram Kumar Yadav and PW-2 Babu Nigam corroborate the testimony of PW-3, the victim.
17. PW-4 Head Constable Jagdish Prasad stated that on 21.03.1983, while posted at Police Station Nagla Khangal, he prepared the Chik FIR (Ex. Ka-2). PW-5 Dr. Usha Pradhan testified that she examined the victim on 22.03.1983. No external or internal injuries were found on her body during the medical examination, and the vaginal smear did not contain spermatozoa. The X-ray report indicated that the victim was about 18 years old at the time of the incident. PW-6 S.I. Mahendra Pal Gautam proved the recovery memo (Ex. Ka-5) relating to the victim and recorded her statement. He also prepared the site plans of the locations involved both the house from where the victim was abducted and the fields where she was confined for three days.
18. Statements of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the allegations. They stated that Ram Saran, Shankar, and Brij Raj, all residents of Garsan, had abducted the victim at around 4 a.m. on 21.03.1983 from her husband Rajveer Singh's house. They asserted that the victim was wearing ornaments and carrying clothes at that time. The defence further alleged that the police personnel at the Garsan outpost were friends of Harbhan Singh, and that Brij Raj Singh had illicit relations with the victim. They claimed that the accused were falsely implicated in collusion with the victim, who had strained relations with her husband.
19. Two defence witnesses were examined. DW-1 S.I. R.K. Sharma proved NCR No. 18, lodged under Section 498A IPC against Shankar, Ram Saran, and Brij Raj by the victim's husband, Rajveer Singh, on 21.03.1983 (Ex. Kha-2). DW-2 Rajveer Singh, the husband of the victim, testified that Ram Saran, Shankar and Brij Raj enticed away his wife on 21-03-1983 near Kanya Pathshala. She was carrying a lota, some clothes and was wearing jewellery. Suresh (one of accused in this case) who had gone to relieve himself, saw the incident and informed him. Rajveer Singh along with Suresh, Janmed Singh, Ajab Singh, and about twenty other villagers chased them and intercepted them near a pond. Ram Sharan, Shankar and Brij Raj were carrying guns. They opened fire and threatened to kill them if they did not retreat. Out of fear, they left the spot while the accused took his wife towards the ravines (bihad). He stated that he then went to the police station to lodge an FIR and submitted an application, but no action was taken because the accused were associated with Harbhan Singh and had illicit relations with his wife.
Findings of Learned Trial Court
20. The learned trial court first addressed the charges framed against the accused persons under Section 452 of the IPC. It referred to the deposition of PW-3, the victim, and held that it was accused Munna alone who entered her house and silently asked her to go with them. The victim further stated that the other three accused were standing outside. Considering her statement, the learned trial court concluded that only accused Munna could be held guilty of the offence under Section 452 IPC. Thereafter, the trial court examined the allegations against the accused under Sections 368 and 376 IPC. To arrive at its conclusion, it relied on the victim's deposition, which largely reiterated the version stated in the FIR. The victim testified that all the accused persons had taken her away on the pretext of dropping her at her maternal home, reminding her of the atrocities committed by her husband. She further stated that she immediately approached the police outpost to report her ordeal to PW-1 Ram Kumar Yadav and PW-2 Babu Nigam. The trial court noted that her conduct indicated there was no reason for her to concoct or fabricate any story against the accused.
21. The court observed that the victim was immediately sent for medical examination. The examining doctor stated that since the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no definitive opinion regarding rape could be given. However, the court emphasized that the doctor also did not deny the possibility of sexual assault. The trial court further noted that the victim's clothes were sent for forensic examination, and the serologist's report confirmed the presence of semen stains. The chemical examination report, which corroborated the victim's testimony, substantiated the allegation that she was raped by all four accused persons, one after another, during her captivity. The court also observed that the victim had been enticed away from her home under the false pretext of being taken to her maternal house. Based on this evidence, the trial court held that offences under Sections 376 and 368 IPC against accused Satish Chandra, Surra alias Surendra, Jai Narayan, and Munna were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
22. Finally, the learned trial court considered the allegation of the offence under Section 353 IPC against accused Diwan Singh, Janmait Singh, Vasudev, Lakhan Singh, and Bhawar Singh. To evaluate the evidence regarding this offence, the court examined the testimony of PW-1 Ram Kumar Yadav, who stated that he and PW-2 Babu Nigam were escorting the victim to the police station when they were stopped about one furlong from the outpost by the said accused. These accused persons demanded that the victim not be taken to the police station and, upon refusal, forcibly seized her from their custody and took her back to the village. The witnesses also stated that they had warned the accused not to interfere with the discharge of their official duties, but the accused ignored the warning and dragged the victim away. The court found PW-1's testimony corroborated by PW-2 Babu Nigam and PW-3, the victim. Based on the above evidence, the learned trial court convicted Satish Chandra, Surra, and Jai Narayan for offences under Sections 366, 368, and 376 IPC. Accused Munna was convicted under Sections 452, 366, 368, and 376 IPC. The remaining accused?Janmet, Diwan Singh, Vasudev, Lakhan Singh, and Bhawar Singh were convicted under Section 353 IPC.
Arguments of the Accused
23. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case rested exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which suffers from material inconsistencies and improbabilities. It was argued that the alleged abduction from her own house was improbable since her husband and mother?in?law were sleeping nearby, and it was inconceivable that she could have been taken away by four persons at 3:00 a.m. without raising any alarm or attracting attention.
24. It was further argued that all the accused belonged to her husband's extended family, with whom relations were cordial. In such a close?knit rural family environment, the allegation of gang rape over three days, in open fields situated just at a short distance from the village, appeared inherently improbable. There was not a single independent witness or person from the neighbouring fields who supported the account of her alleged captivity or sexual assault.
25. Counsel pointed out testimony of P.W.-5 Dr. Usha Pradhan demonstrates victim had no visible injuries, external or internal. The absence of injuries was inconsistent with the narrative of repeated violent assaults over three nights. The victim herself admitted that people were present in nearby fields during the day, and yet she did not raise any alarm, which indicated that the incident had been fabricated.
26. With respect to the charge under Section 353 IPC, it was argued by P.W-3 Victim and P.W-2 Babu Nigam differed materially on key facts?PW?3 Victim stated that the accused were unarmed, while PW?2 Babu Nigam claimed that they carried sticks and clubs. The alleged act of forcibly seizing the victim from police custody a few yards away from the outpost, in the presence of armed constables, without any retaliation rendered the story highly doubtful. Relying upon the admitted existence of two rival factions in the village, it was contended that the accused were falsely implicated due to factional enmity and local disputes. In the absence of corroborative medical, physical, or independent evidence, it was contended that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the Prosecution
27. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the findings of the learned trial court, asserting that the victim's testimony was consistent, natural, and sufficient to sustain conviction. It was submitted that in cases of sexual offences, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, and no independent corroboration is necessary. It was argued that the victim was a young woman of 17 years who had been subjected to intimidation, deceit, and physical coercion. Her failure to raise an alarm or attract attention during her confinement should not be viewed as indicative of falsehood but rather as a result of fear instilled by the accused. The prosecution stressed that the serological report confirming the presence of semen stains on her clothes lent scientific corroboration to her version of sexual assault.
28. Regarding the minor discrepancies between witness statements, it was contended that such inconsistencies were natural and did not materially affect the core of the prosecution case. The prosecution further stated that the conduct of the accused in forcibly taking away the victim from police custody clearly demonstrated their consciousness of guilt and their attempt to suppress the evidence. The prosecution, therefore, urged that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court was justified and did not warrant interference.
Conclusion
29. After hearing the Learned Counsels and perusing the Trial Court records, I have gone through the entire evidence produced during trial. Before discussing the evidence led by both sides, it will be relevant to refer to the prosecution story in brief. Entire prosecution story hinges upon the testimony of victim. After she arrived the police outpost, she stated that she was unhappy with her husband's behavior. On the night of 18?19 March 1983, the accused?Munna, Satish, Jai Narayan, and Surendra @ Surra?came to her house, promising to take her to her maternal home in Gokulpur. Instead, they took her to the wheat fields of Harbhan Singh near village Pokhar. There, all four accused raped her. In the morning, Surra and Munna went to the village while Satish and Jai Narayan guarded her. That evening, Surra and Munna returned with food and water, which she refused, but they forced her to eat and again raped her. On 20 March, 1983 Satish and Jai Narayan brought her food, water, and clothes, and all four again committed rape. The next day, the accused took her to the arhar fields of the Pradhan of Fatehpur, where she was raped once more. On 21 March, 1983 she managed to escape when Satish and Jai Narayan went out and reached the police outpost to report the incident. As police prepared to take her to the station, accused Janmed Singh and Diwan Singh arrived with a crowd, forcibly took her away, and threatened the officers with violence.
30. The charges against the appellants can be divided into three parts: firstly, the kidnapping of the victim by four accused persons and her confinement in the fields for nearly three days; secondly, the gang rape committed by the accused persons; and thirdly, the act of the accused in forcibly taking her away from police custody. In light of the above, it is expedient to discuss the victim's deposition regarding these allegations in sequence. Before examining her testimony concerning the allegations against the appellants, it is appropriate to refer to her personal background as stated in her deposition.
31. She stated that she knew the accused persons. Accused Satish is the nephew of her husband, Rajveer. Her family had no enmity with the accused persons; rather, they maintained cordial relations with them. All the accused who allegedly raped her belonged to the extended family of Rajveer, and she was acquainted with the other accused as well. Her marriage with Rajveer was solemnised three years before the incident. She was unhappy in her marital life as her husband used to beat her. He was handicapped, his right hand was missing from the shoulder. She also stated that she had never visited the fields of her matrimonial village or at any house there. Furthermore, she mentioned that there were two factions in her village one led by Harbhan Singh and the other by Hariom.
32. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that the accused persons came to her house at around 3:00 a.m. on a Friday night. By telling her that her husband was torturing her they promised to drop her at her maternal home. In cross-examination, she added that on that night she was sleeping in the courtyard of her house, while her husband slept on a cot 4?5 yards away, and her mother-in-law's cot was about 6?7 yards away. Everyone was sleeping within the enclosed boundary of the house. Only accused Munna came near her while the others stood outside. She stated that she did not leave the house solely at Munna's assurance but upon being persuaded by all the accused who were standing outside.
33. In her examination-in-chief, she further stated that the accused deceived her and took her to the wheat field of Harbhan Singh, where she was raped by all of them. In the morning, Surra and Munna went to the village while Satish and Jai Ram stayed with her. In the evening, Surra and Munna brought food, which she refused to eat, but they compelled her to eat under threat. All of them again raped her that night. The next morning, Satish and Jai Ram went to the village, leaving Munna and Surra with her. Once more, all of them raped her at night. On Sunday, accused Jai Ram and Satish brought food, a petticoat, and a dhoti for her. They made her change into the new clothes and again raped her that night. Subsequently, they shifted her to the field of the village Pradhan, where arhar crop was standing. The next morning, Munna and Surra left for the village while Satish and Jai Ram stayed behind. The clothes she had been wearing on Friday and Saturday nights during the rape were taken away by the accused persons, leaving her only with the new clothes they had brought.
34. She stated in her cross examination that accused had told her that wheat field belonged to Harbhan Singh and arhar field was of Pradhan. She then stated it was about one and a half miles from the village, near the fields of Bharat Singh. Regarding the incident of rape, she stated that all the accused raped her on the nights of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. During the daytime, people were present in fields at some distance away from the scene of the occurrence. The accused gagged her mouth and threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm. They were not carrying any weapons. Regarding her clothes, she stated that the clothes she wore when she left her house with accused persons were taken away by them and they gave her new clothes on Sunday. She was raped in new clothes which had white spots and no blood stains.
35. Regarding the events after she escaped, she stated in her examination-in-chief that she managed to flee from the arhar field and reached the police outpost at around 8:00 a.m. While narrating the incident to the constables, accused Janmed and Diwan Singh arrived and started talking to her. Meanwhile, about 40?50 villagers gathered there. The constables told them that they were getting late and would take her to the police station. However, accused Janmed and others objected, saying they would not allow it as it was a matter of pride for them. Three constables then set out with her towards the police station, but on the way, accused Janmed, Diwan Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Vasudev, and Lakhan Singh forcibly took her away from police custody. The constables warned the accused not to interfere, but they threatened gunfire if the police persisted. The accused dragged her away and took her home. The Police Inspector came to her house in the evening and arrested accused Diwan Singh, who was present there.
36. In her cross-examination, she stated that around 50?60 people had gathered at the outpost and seized her from police custody while she was being taken to the police station. All were unarmed. None of the accused assaulted the police personnel, though they issued threats. The Police Inspector later came to her house in the evening and interrogated her in the presence of her mother-in-law. Her mother in law did not disclose anything to him at that time. Her husband was absent, and she did not know his whereabouts. She was pregnant at the time of occurrence . As a consequence of rape, she was having slight swelling on her genitalia .The police handed her over to her mother's custody. Her X-ray was taken on Wednesday. She remained at the police station for five to six days, and her statement was recorded in court on Thursday.
37. In continuation of the above, the testimony of two other police constables, whom the victim approached after the incident, also requires consideration. P.W.-1 Ram Kumar Yadav stated in his cross-examination that the victim was wearing new clothes when she arrived at the police outpost. Her clothes were not dirty, and no mud stains were visible on her body. She asked them to take her to the police station, and he stated this fact to the Investigating Officer (I.O.). If the I.O. did not mention it in his statement, the witness could not tell the reason behind it. When victim approached them, they did not find it necessary to take her back to her house, and hence, they did not do so. When he went with the I.O. to the house of the victim, she was present there along with her mother-in-law. Accused Diwan Singh, along with some villagers, was sitting outside her house. He has also stated that there existed two factions in the village.
38. P.W.-2 Sri Babu Nigam also admitted two factions existed in the village. When the victim came to the police outpost, she had brought blood-stained clothes kept in her handbag. The dress she was wearing did not have any mud or blood stains. Victim requested them to take her to police station, and he had informed the I.O. about this fact, but if the I.O. did not record it, then she could not explain the reason. The victim was seized from their custody barely one and a half yards away from the police outpost. They had summoned the victim's husband and mother-in-law to the police outpost, but they did not appear. The accused involved in such seizing were armed with clubs and sticks. When he reached the victim's house, a large number of people were present there, including the victim's mother-in-law. Accused Bhanwar Singh and Janmed were also present. The victim showed them the fields where she was allegedly raped and confined. These fields are hardly one to one and a half yards away from the village. The victim had been missing for the past three to four days, and Rajveer was searching for her. However, he had not sought police assistance.
39. Upon careful scrutiny of the depositions of all prosecution witnesses and the evidence adduced during trial, it is apparent that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the solitary testimony of the victim. While the court is conscious that a conviction in cases of sexual offence may be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, in the present case, her version suffers from material contradictions and inherent improbabilities, which render it unsafe to place implicit reliance upon it.
40. The victim, in her chief examination, stated that all four accused came to her house at about 3:00 a.m., where accused Munna entered her house, and upon their persuasion she accompanied them. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband and mother-in-law were sleeping nearby in the same courtyard within the enclosed boundary. It is highly improbable that victim in given circumstances can easily sneak along with four persons from the midst of family members, without anyone waking up or offering resistance. Notably, the accused persons alleged to have committed rape were all members of her husband's extended family and the victim's own deposition acknowledged that there was no previous enmity and that the families maintained cordial relations. This improbability strikes at the root of the prosecution story and diminishes its credibility.
41. A further point of concern arises in relation to the conduct of the police officers. The victim, in her own deposition, did not state that she requested the police constables to take her to the police station after her arrival at the outpost. However, both PW-1 Ram Kumar and PW-2 Babu Nigam, in their testimonies, claimed that she made such a request. This contradiction on a material fact whether or not she proactively sought police intervention throws a shadow on the naturalness and veracity of her narrative as well as the reliability of the police account.
42. It is additionally notable that after her arrival at the outpost, the police did not make any effort to take her to her matrimonial home or even to ensure her safety with her family members. Victim herself stated she was reluctant to return to her matrimonial home rather was willing to go at her maternal home. She has also stated that she remained at Police Station for 5-6 days after the incident. She stated it took 5-6 days because she was sent for medical examination and for recording of her statement before Court. It is difficult to comprehend under what circumstances a married lady was neither sent to her matrimonial home nor was escorted to her maternal home.
43. It will be relevant to mention that despite victim claiming she was kept at police station for her medical examination and recording of her statement before Court, there is no mention in her examination in chief that her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded. Even P.W.-6 S.I. M.P. Gautam has not mentioned that she was ever produced before Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is admitted case of prosecution that appellants after seizing victim from police custody took her and dropped her at her matrimonial home. I.O. also arrived at victim's house in the evening . At the time when I.O. arrived, victim as well her mother in law were present. The circumstances are further aggravated by the fact that her mother-in-law, who was admittedly present in the house when the Investigating Officer visited along with the police team, was not interrogated or examined as a witness, though her testimony was vital in establishing the sequence of events. She was a person who could have deposed on three counts; about when victim was enticed from her house,what D.W.-2 Rajveer did after victim went missing and about the manner in victim was brought back home by the appellants who had seized her from police custody.
44. Victim's version of continuous confinement for three days in open fields also invites serious doubt. She claimed that she was in captivity of appellants for three consecutive days in the wheat and arhar fields situated merely one to one and a half miles from the village, while acknowledging that other cultivators were present in the adjoining lands during the day. Despite such proximity and movement of people, not a single independent witness saw her in captivity or heard any cries, which appears inconsistent with normal human conduct.
45. As for the allegations under Section 353 IPC, the testimonies of P.W.-2 Babu Nigam and P.W.-3 victim reveal material inconsistency. PW?2 Babu Nigam stated that the accused persons were armed with clubs and sticks, whereas PW?3 victim they were empty handed. She also stated that only five persons were involved in her seizing from the custody while the other person in crowd were onlookers. The alleged seizing of the victim by five persons from police custody consisting of 3 armed constables (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 stated that one more constables was present and all of them were armed) occurred barely a few yards from the outpost in the presence of armed constables. P.W.-1 Ramkumar and P.W.-2 Babu Nigam have admitted accused Diwan, Janmad and Bhanwar were present at the house of victim when I.O. arrived there in evening. Accused remaining present in the house of victim after they had seized her from armed police constables knowing well they can face legal consequences casts doubts on prosecution version.
46. The testimony of DW?2, though disbelieved by the trial court by holding that he might have deposed in favour of accused persons under the pressure of village faction which supports the accused. Such assumption unsubstantiated by any evidence is unsustainable. It is pertinent to mention that F.I.R by P.W.-2 Constable Babu Nigam and N.C.R by D.W.-2 Rajveer was lodged on the same day by police of same Police Station. Even P.W.-2 Babu Nigam had stated that D.W.-2 Rajveer was searching for the victim for past 2-3 days. If it is so, testimony of D.W.-2 Rajveer, who happens to be the husband of victim cannot be denied on speculations. It was held in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as (1981) 2 SCC 166, that defence witnesses deserve equal treatment as prosecution witnesses. Courts should overcome their instinctive distrust of defence witnesses. Both defence and prosecution witnesses can lie. His statement is consistent with the NCR lodged under Section 498A IPC proved by D.W.?1 and with the admitted existence of factional disputes in the village between groups led by Harbhan Singh and Hariom. His version not only provides an alternative and plausible narrative but also explains the origin of false implication of the accused persons due to village factionalism and strained marital relations of the victim. Importantly, his evidence is not inherently improbable and is supported by surrounding circumstances, including the contentious conduct of the Investigating Officer and omission to examine crucial witnesses such as the victim's mother?in?law. Hence, the testimony of DW?2 cannot be brushed aside simply because he was the husband of the prosecutrix.
47. The absence of any injury marks on her person, as noted by the medical officer, further weakens the claim of repeated sexual assault with force over such a prolonged duration. A careful analysis of the medical evidence is imperative, particularly in view of the allegations of repeated sexual assault over a span of several days. The medical officer, Dr. Usha Pradhan (PW-5), stated in unambiguous terms that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse and found no external or internal injuries on the victim's private parts during the medical examination, though victim stated that she was having minor swelling on her genitalia. Similarly, the alleged gang rape by four accused persons was committed in the fields of wheat and Arhar. Victim has stated that she resisted but was threatened by accused persons. She also stated she had no injuries except minor swelling. Rape was committed in fields, where smooth surface cannot be imagined, and therefore, some injuries on other body parts is bound to occur, even though they may be of low degree.. It is well accepted that even if there are no injuries, rape can still be proved if the victim's statement is trustworthy and believable. However, if her account has many contradictions and seems unlikely, as in this case, the absence of injuries,external as well as internal,can not be brushed aside lightly.
48. It was held in Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam (2010) 12 SCC 115 that case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as any other case and that there is no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. Similarly, it was held that under Section 366 IPC that 'It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.'
49. The Trial Court failed to see that it is highly unlikely for four men to quietly take a married woman from her home while her family slept nearby. Such an act would normally cause noise, struggle, or alarm. PW-3 victim stated that the accused were members of her husband's extended family and their relationship had been cordial, with no prior enmity. In a close rural setting, such serious allegations against family members require strong supporting evidence, which the Trial Court did not seek. The victim's claim that she was confined and repeatedly assaulted for three days in open fields near the village seems doubtful. She said she was held in wheat and arhar fields which were only about a mile from the village, while other farmers were working nearby during the day. The Trial Court accepted her explanation that threats and gagging from unarmed appellants stopped her from calling for help. Trial Court ignored that mother in law was neither interrogated by I.O. nor was produced by prosecution. Her testimony was material for disclosure of relevant facts. Trial Court even failed to consider that statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not available even though victim claimed she was taken to Court during her police custody. It is true said fact occurred in her cross examination, but it was enough to draw attention of court. Even testimony of D.W.-2 Rajveer was discarded without any cogent reason.
50. In light of the above analysis, the contradictions between the depositions of the victim and the police witnesses, the improbabilities inherent in the alleged manner of abduction and repeated rape, the absence of corroborative medical or independent evidence, and the admitted existence of village rivalry, collectively create a serious doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
51. Accordingly, all the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
52. The appellants, namely Munna, Jai Narayan, Basudeo, Lakhan Singh, Diwan Singh are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 452, 366, 368, 376, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appellant no.3-Basudeo and appellant no.4-Lakhan, who are in jail pursuant to non-bailable warrants issued against them, be released forthwith. However, the surviving appellants shall furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within two months from today.
53. Copy of this judgment be sent immediately to the concerned court through the Registrar (J) Compliance.
54. The Trial Court's record be remitted back along with copy of this judgment.
55. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
November 21, 2025
Ujjawal
