Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused

"Prosecutrix herself registered the FIR before the police station and did not level any allegation against the accused-appellant regarding the commission of rape with her, but simply alleged commission of ‘insult’... the same is nothing but a material ‘improvement’ and it vitally creates doubt upon the statement of prosecutrix recorded before the trial court," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, set aside the conviction of an accused in a 1984 rape case, observing that the introduction of rape allegations during the trial—which were absent in the initial First Information Report (FIR)—constituted a "material improvement."

A single-judge bench of Justice Santosh Rai noted that when the victim herself lodges an FIR alleging only "insult" and "loot," a subsequent shift to rape charges creates reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that such omissions regarding important features of an incident vitally touch upon the factum required to be proved by the prosecution.

The case originated in June 1984, when the victim alleged that Tosif and Badulla assaulted her in an orchard in Meerut and robbed her of silver ornaments. Following an investigation, the accused were charged under Section 376 of the IPC and convicted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, in 1988. The appellants approached the High Court challenging their seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, during the pendency of which appellant Tosif passed away.

The primary question before the court was whether the omission of rape allegations in the FIR and the absence of a statement under Section 164 CrPC rendered the subsequent testimony unreliable. The court also examined whether the medical evidence, which showed no internal or external injuries, could support a conviction based on the victim’s claim of a violent sexual assault.

Absence Of Rape Allegations In The Initial Complaint

The Court observed that the written tehrir submitted by the victim to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the resulting FIR contained no allegations of rape. The initial report was registered under Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 394 (robbery), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The bench noted that the victim specifically alleged "insult" and the looting of silver ornaments, rather than sexual intercourse.

"In the tehrir and the first information report, there is no allegation of rape against the accused-appellants. The allegations, as mentioned in the tehrir and the first information report, are that the accused persons committed ‘insult’ and further looted the ‘silver ornaments’ of the victim."

Material Improvements In Oral Testimony

The bench highlighted that the allegation of rape was made for the first time during the trial proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P., the Court held that omissions in previous statements regarding vital features of an incident amount to contradictions. The Court found it suspicious that the victim, who lodged the FIR herself, waited until the trial to claim that she had been raped.

"The prosecutrix herself registered the FIR before the police station and did not level any allegation against the accused-appellant regarding the commission of rape with her... the same is nothing but a material ‘improvement’ and it vitally creates doubt upon the statement of prosecutrix."

Lack Of Medical Corroboration Regarding Physical Violence

The Court scrutinized the testimony of the victim, who claimed that the accused had bitten her on the cheek, stuffed a cloth in her mouth, and caused her to lose consciousness. However, the medical expert, Dr. Vidhu Lata Tiwari, testified that no external or internal injuries were found on any part of the victim's body. The medical report stated that the hymen had old healed tears and the victim was "habituated to sexual intercourse," offering no definite opinion on rape.

"The statement of the victim that the two accused persons had assaulted her and bitten her on the cheek and caused injuries is not corroborated by the medical evidence available on record. Consequently, there exists a material contradiction between the statement of the victim and the medical evidence."

Failure To Record Statement Under Section 164 CrPC

Justice Santosh Rai noted with concern that the Investigating Officer failed to record the victim’s statement before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC. The prosecution offered no plausible explanation for this omission. The Court remarked that this failure meant the allegation of rape surfaced only during the trial, long after the incident, which weakened the prosecution's case significantly.

"Admittedly, no statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded during the course of investigation. It is also a material omission on the part of the Investigating Officer... no plausible explanation in this regard has been furnished by the prosecution."

Doubtful Identification And Hearsay Evidence

The bench found the identification of the accused to be unreliable, as the victim gave contradictory statements regarding her prior acquaintance with the appellants. Furthermore, the testimony of the victim's sister-in-law (PW-2) was classified as "hearsay" because she admitted she was not familiar with the accused and their names were disclosed to her by others. The Court noted that despite 10 to 20 persons being present near the orchard, no independent witnesses were examined.

"Identification of accused persons on the spot by the victim also appears to be doubtful... [PW-2's] testimony falls within the category of ‘hearsay evidence’, which is neither reliable nor admissible in evidence."

Standard Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Referring to the landmark judgments in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra and Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh, the Court reiterated that while "imaginary" doubts should not lead to acquittals, the benefit of "reasonable" doubt must always go to the accused. The Court concluded that the trial court had relied on conjectures and surmises rather than a proper appreciation of the evidence.

"The learned trial court has ignored the material contradictions, improvements and omissions appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim. It appears that the trial court has held the accused-appellants guilty merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises."

The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to the glaring inconsistencies between the FIR, the medical report, and the oral testimony. The appeal was allowed, and the surviving appellant, Badulla, was acquitted of all charges.

The High Court set aside the 1988 judgment, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of rape beyond a reasonable doubt given the delayed and improved nature of the allegations. The Court ordered the discharge of the appellant’s bail bonds and sureties, ending a legal battle that spanned nearly four decades.

Date of Decision: 22 May 2026