Prosecution Cannot Secure Conviction Where Testimonies Are Contradictory And Medico-Legal Evidence Negates Allegation Of Rape: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man After 9 Years Jail

“Courts Cannot Close Their Eyes to Ground Realities of False Rape Allegations”, In a path-breaking judgment delivered on 10th July 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) emphatically overturned the conviction of a 45-year-old man, Ram Sanehi, accused of raping his minor cousin. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi declared:

“The trial court has convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of evidence on record and without giving due weight to the medico-legal examination report and the pathological examination report of the victim. The findings of guilt recorded by the trial court are unsustainable in the eyes of law.”

This landmark acquittal comes after the appellant languished in prison for over nine years without effective legal representation, a grim testament to systemic gaps in justice delivery, especially in sensitive POCSO cases.

The Anatomy of a Miscarriage of Justice

The case dates back to March 2016, when an FIR was lodged alleging that the appellant, a cousin of the victim, had allegedly raped her after forcibly detaining her for six hours. The prosecution’s narrative, however, began unraveling before the High Court, exposing contradictions that could not be overlooked.

Justice Vidyarthi laid bare the inconsistencies, noting:

“No reasonable person of ordinary prudence would believe that a person aged 45 years kept on shutting the mouth of his minor cousin with one hand and holding her hands with his other hand, continuously for 5-6 hours, raped her thrice, thereafter placed her upon a loft, and the victim made no attempt to raise her voice even after the act.”

Medico-Legal Reports Dismantle Prosecution’s Story

The Court observed that despite allegations of brutal sexual assault, the medical examination conducted within 72 hours revealed no injuries, no signs of recent sexual activity, and no traces of spermatozoa.

“Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the finding recorded in the medico-legal examination report that there was no evidence of recent sexual penetration cannot be brushed aside… Such scientific evidence must prevail over oral testimony riddled with contradictions,” Justice Vidyarthi wrote emphatically.

The Court chastised the trial court for dismissing these crucial medical findings, terming it a “clear failure in appreciation of key evidence.”

Collapsing Testimonies and Fabricated Narratives

Diving deep into the testimonies, the High Court highlighted how each witness, including the victim and her parents, contradicted themselves on critical aspects like time of occurrence, people present at the scene, and sequence of events.

The judgment noted: “The contradictions are not peripheral… they go to the heart of the prosecution’s case and render it wholly unreliable.”

Moreover, Justice Vidyarthi pointed out the absence of any independent witnesses, despite the alleged involvement of several neighbors in recovering the victim. He remarked that this “omission gravely undermines the credibility of the prosecution.”

A Grim Picture of Institutional Neglect

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect was the revelation of systemic failure. The Court expressed anguish that the appointed Amicus Curiae failed to file bail, did not challenge the conviction, and restricted his argument merely to a reduction of sentence.

“It is indeed very disturbing that a 45-year-old person, who had no one to look after his interest, was made to languish in jail for more than nine years… The Court cannot shut its eyes to such ground realities,” the Court observed sternly.

In a scathing indictment of procedural apathy, Justice Vidyarthi called out the miscarriage of justice caused by institutional neglect.

False Implication Driven by Family Dispute

The motive behind the false accusation, as traced from records, stemmed from a trivial family dispute — burning of a saree by the appellant. The Court rejected the theory of motive, remarking:

“It was not such an incident that could drive a man to commit rape, nor could it justify the victim’s family fabricating such a serious allegation.”

The judgment further stressed how the triviality of the motive combined with glaring inconsistencies revealed a case of false implication driven by petty animosity.

Directions for Restoration of Liberty and Property

The High Court did not stop at acquittal. Recognising the risk of property dispossession faced by the accused during his nine-year incarceration, the Court issued robust directions for his rehabilitation.

“Judicial duty extends beyond acquittal to securing post-acquittal rehabilitation of a falsely implicated individual,” wrote Justice Vidyarthi.

Ordering immediate release, the Court also directed the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, to ensure the restoration of possession of the appellant’s house, acknowledging:

“There is a reasonable apprehension that his property might have been usurped during his incarceration.”

A Resounding Reaffirmation of “Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the conviction in its entirety, holding:

“The prosecution has failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where serious discrepancies are coupled with exculpatory medical evidence, no conviction can be sustained in the eyes of law.”

The judgment serves as a powerful reaffirmation of the principle that no person should suffer incarceration based on flawed evidence and prejudiced proceedings.

Date of Decision: 10th July 2025