The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of two men in a 1998 gang rape case, holding that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must inspire confidence and be free from serious inconsistencies.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in the victim’s statements, unexplained delay in filing the FIR, and absence of corroborative evidence.
The case relates to an alleged incident dated 7 April 1998 in Sanjay Colony, Dehradun. According to the prosecution, the victim was returning home from the market when four accused persons allegedly intercepted her, covered her mouth with a black handkerchief, and took her to a nearby plot where they raped her one after another.
However, the complaint was lodged only on 31 July 1998, nearly three months and twenty-four days after the alleged incident. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered at Police Station Dalanwala under Sections 376, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in 2000 convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(g) IPC (gang rape) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), sentencing them to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000.
The Uttarakhand High Court later upheld the conviction in 2012, observing that in crimes of such nature the victim herself may be the only witness and her testimony could be relied upon.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the case suffered from several material contradictions between the FIR and the prosecutrix’s statements, and that the delay of over three months in lodging the FIR was not convincingly explained. They also highlighted the absence of independent witnesses and medical evidence supporting the allegations.
The defence further contended that there was prior enmity between the parties over a water dispute, suggesting the possibility of false implication.
On the other hand, the State argued that the victim’s sworn testimony clearly established the elements of the offence and that the delay in lodging the complaint was due to fear, shame, and threats allegedly issued by the accused.
After examining the record, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court noted that the victim did not disclose the alleged incident to her family members or even her husband for several months, which it considered inconsistent with ordinary human conduct. The Court also observed that individuals who were allegedly informed about the incident were never examined before the trial court.
Further, the bench found significant inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements regarding the place of occurrence, the distance of the incident site from her home, and other material facts. The absence of medical or other corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case.
The Court reiterated that although conviction in rape cases can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must inspire confidence and be free from serious contradictions. In the present case, the Court held that the evidence did not meet this standard.
The Court also relied on its earlier ruling in Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2008), where it held that in cases resting solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony, courts must exercise caution—especially where there is a substantial delay in lodging the FIR and absence of corroborative evidence.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court, acquitting the appellants of all charges. The Court directed that they be released immediately if not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajendra & Ors Versus State Of Uttarakhand
Citation: JURISHOUR-360-SC-2026Â
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.(S) 264 Of 2015
Date: March 13, 2026
Read More: Conviction of Excise Constable in Bribery Case Upheld: Supreme CourtÂ
