Allahabad High Court Acquits Three in 2015 Mahoba Gang-Rape Case, Upholds Conviction of One | Says Injury to Victim’s Private Parts Not Always Necessary to Prove Offence
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir partly allowed appeals in a gang-rape case under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting three appellants on the benefit of doubt while affirming the conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment with fines for one accused. The case involved the abduction of a young woman in Charkhari, Mahoba, who was allegedly forced to consume alcohol and sexually assaulted in a deserted building. The Court observed that physical injury to the victim’s private parts is not indispensable to prove rape, as lack of injuries may result when a victim, placed in grave fear, offers no resistance.
The case arose from an incident that took place on the evening of 11 January 2015 in Charkhari, District Mahoba. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix, a 20-year-old college student, left her home around 7:00 p.m. to purchase gutkha for her father. She was allegedly accosted by four men who forcibly took her to a deserted building behind a shop. It was claimed that she was compelled to consume alcohol, beaten, and subjected to sexual assault by the four accused during the night.
The following morning, 12 January 2015, a passerby informed her father that his daughter had been found unconscious in the ruins. She was recovered by her parents and taken to the police station, where an initial report was lodged under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for assault, as the prosecutrix at first disclosed only that she had been beaten by one of the men. She was sent for medical examination, which recorded external injuries but no internal injuries indicative of sexual assault.
On 13 January 2015, after regaining composure, the prosecutrix disclosed to her mother that she had been gang-raped by all four men. A first information report was then registered under Section 376-D IPC at Police Station Charkhari. Investigation followed, leading to the arrest of the accused and recovery of material exhibits such as liquor bottles, cigarette butts, slippers, and clothes from the alleged scene. Statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of the prosecutrix, supported by her parents’ accounts, medical and forensic evidence, and the recovery of exhibits. The defence challenged the credibility of the prosecutrix’s narrative, citing the initial non-cognizable report that mentioned only assault, the delay in alleging rape, the absence of injuries to her private parts, and alleged ulterior motives for implicating the accused.
The trial court convicted all four accused under Section 376-D IPC, sentencing each to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. The convicts appealed to the High Court, asserting false implication and insufficiency of evidence.
The High Court considered the circumstances leading to the initial report of assault and the subsequent lodging of the FIR for gang-rape. It observed: “The reason given out for not reporting rape earlier and in the first instance by the prosecutrix was shock and fear… A varying explanation, though not essentially different, would show that a day’s time was required for the prosecutrix’s family, including herself, to reconcile, resolve and report.”
Regarding the behaviour of the victim and her family, the Court stated: “Appreciation of evidence, particularly the conduct of parties, cannot be tested on predetermined models of some standard behaviour… The prosecutrix is a 20-year-old small-town girl… She would have felt devastated to face the gruesome crime while still a college student and an unmarried woman.”
On the transition from an initial report of assault to allegations of gang-rape, the Court recorded: “There is nothing to blemish the prosecutrix’s version or the prosecution on ground that an earlier N.C.R. merely reported assault. Whatever has come by for this change is logical and inspires confidence.”
The Court addressed the issue of the absence of injuries to the private parts: “Injury to the private parts of a rape victim is not always necessary as evidence to establish the offence of rape, including gang-rape… The absence of injury… could be due to the non-employment of force in perpetration of the crime in cases where she is put in fear to an extent that she did not resist the act.”
On the evidentiary value of the victim’s account, the Court observed: “The testimony of the prosecutrix is invariably to be accepted without corroboration unless there is some such inherent flaw or contradiction that the truth of it becomes difficult to accept… The prosecutrix’s testimony is all the more worthy of acceptance because she is a young woman of 20 years, student of a senior class, on the verge of graduation.”
It further recorded: “The recovery of liquor bottles, cigarette butts, the prosecutrix’s footwear, water bottle, are all consistent with the prosecutrix’s version, which inspires confidence.”
“In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos.1594 of 2017, 1580 of 2017 and 1282 of 2017 succeed and are allowed. The appellants, Irfan son of Shahzade, Ritesh @ Shanu and Manvendra @ Kallu are hereby acquitted, granting them the benefit of doubt. They are in jail and shall be released from prison forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case and subject to fulfilling the requirements under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”
“Criminal Appeal No.1897 of 2017 preferred by the appellant, Irfan @ Golu is hereby dismissed and his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court stand affirmed.”
“A copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Mahoba for information and necessary compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Kamta Prasad, Advocate; Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate; M. P. Yadav, Advocate; Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate, assisted by K. K. Nishad, State Law Officer
Case Title: Irfan and Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC: 169200
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1594 of 2017
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir
