In Rajendra & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand, Supreme Court acquitted four men in a 1998 gang rape case, setting aside their conviction u/s 376(2)(g) and 506 IPC, and sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by Dehradun Trial Court, which was also upheld by Uttarakhand HC in 2012.

The case originated from a complaint filed on 31 July 1998 by the prosecutrix, alleging that on 07 April 1998, while returning home from the market, she was intercepted by 4 men (Rajendra, Pappu alias Hanuman, Sushil Kumar, and Kishan), who allegedly gagged her, covered her eyes, and took her to a nearby plot where they raped her one after another.

Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and in 2000, the trial court convicted all 4 accused. The Uttarakhand HC upheld the conviction in 2012, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and that the delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained. During the pendency of appeal before SC, 2 of the accused passed away.

Before the Supreme Court, defence highlighted several inconsistencies in prosecution’s case. It was argued that FIR was lodged after a delay of over 3 months without a cogent explanation, and also pointed out contradictions between her FIR and statements u/s 164 CrPC.

Further, the defence emphasized material discrepancies, including conflicting versions about the place of occurrence (room and plot), inconsistencies regarding distance and location, and contradictions between the prosecutrix’s testimony and IO’s statements.

Court also noted the absence of independent witnesses despite the alleged incident occurring in a populated area, and the existence of prior enmity over a water dispute.

Upon examining the evidence, Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It noted the absence of corroborative evidence and the non-examination of key witnesses, including the woman to whom the incident was allegedly narrated.

Court found it “hard to believe that such a grave incident was not disclosed… to her husband… but was done so to a stranger woman who never deposed before the court.”

Accordingly, Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.