The Allahabad High Court acquitted Surajpal and Udai Pal, overturning their twenty-year sentences in a 2015 minor gang-rape case. Justice Manoj Bajaj held that inconsistencies between eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and investigation created reasonable doubt, citing material discrepancies in statements.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction and twenty-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of two men, Surajpal and Udai Pal, who were accused of gang-raping a minor in 2015. The Court indicated that the victim’s eyewitness account was inconsistent with medical evidence and investigative findings.
Justice Manoj Bajaj, presiding over the appeals, noted that the prosecution did not establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, pointing out “material discrepancies” in the statements made by the victim and her parents.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR filed on June 9, 2015, at Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, based on a complaint from the victim’s father (P.W.-1). It was claimed that on June 8, 2015, at around 5:00 PM, the 14-year-old girl was returning home with fodder when the accused, Surajpal and Udai Pal, forcibly pulled her into a field owned by Rakesh.
According to the complaint, the accused tore the victim’s clothes and raped her. The victim alleged that when she resisted, Surajpal gagged her with a cloth. She returned home in torn clothing and recounted the incident.
Following the investigation, the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly) convicted both accused on December 16, 2020, under Sections 376-D (Gang Rape) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Rahul Saxena, representing the appellants, argued that the testimonies of the prosecutrix (P.W.-2) and her parents (P.W.-1 and P.W.-3) contained significant discrepancies. He highlighted that while the victim claimed her younger sister, Shyamwati, witnessed the event and was tied up by the accused, the prosecution did not examine her as a witness.
ALSO READ: “Marriage Must Be Protected”: Rajasthan Court Drops Rape Charges After Wedding
Moreover, the defense alleged that the case stemmed from prior animosity, noting that the prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination that a relative’s wife had eloped with Surajpal. The counsel pointed out that the medical evidence and FSL report did not corroborate the eyewitness account.
Counsel for the Respondent (State): The learned AGA, along with the complainant’s counsel, asserted that the prosecutrix clearly identified the accused and detailed their actions. They referenced the testimony of Dr. Shilpi Kesarwani (P.W.-4), who noted a torn hymen, as well as Dr. S.S. Chauhan (P.W.-6), who estimated the victim’s age to be around 16 years. They argued that the trial court’s ruling was sound and warranted no interference.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon reviewing the record, the High Court identified several serious flaws in the prosecution’s case:
- Non-Examination of Key Witness: The Court found it “strange” that the victim’s younger sister, alleged to be an eyewitness and tied up during the incident, was neither involved in the investigation nor called to testify.
- Conflict Between Ocular and Medical Evidence: The victim claimed to have sustained injuries to her chest and back, with reported bleeding. However, the medical report (Exb. Ka-3) showed no signs of injury.
The Court remarked,
“The contradiction between ocular version and the medical evidence also raises doubt in the prosecution case.”
- Absence of Physical Evidence: Although the victim claimed her clothes were torn and that she walked home without them, the Investigating Officer failed to collect these garments. The Court noted that the victim’s residence was only 125 meters from the scene, making it “not believable” that such an incident could occur unnoticed in an open area near a busy road.
- Probability of False Implication: The Court found the defense’s argument of potential false implication “probable,” given that the complainant had acknowledged the elopement of her nephew’s wife with Surajpal.
ALSO READ: RG Kar Rape-Murder || “Probe Indicates It Wasn’t a Case of Gang Rape”: CBI To Calcutta HC
The High Court criticized the trial court for not adequately considering these discrepancies, stating:
“The trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in a proper manner by ignoring the material discrepancies in the prosecution case; therefore, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant.”
Decision
The Court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence cast serious doubt on the case and that the charges were not proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals.
It set aside the conviction and sentence from December 16, 2020, and acquitted Surajpal and Udai Pal of all charges. The Court ordered their immediate release from custody, provided they were not required in any other case.
Case Title: Surajpal vs. State of UP (Criminal Appeal No. 1550 of 2021) and Udai Pal vs. State of UP (Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2021)
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES