Serious Contradictions, No Medical Evidence, False Implication Apparent: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Cousin Rape Case After 9 Years in Jail

“Judicial Duty Does Not End With Formal Hearing – Courts Must Prevent Miscarriage of Justice”, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench set aside a conviction under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, acquitting a man who had been imprisoned for more than nine years without proper legal representation. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that “the conviction cannot be sustained in view of material contradictions in evidence, absence of medical corroboration, and signs of false implication due to previous animosity.”

The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on 18th March 2016 by a minor girl alleging that her cousin, Ram Sanehi, forcibly raped her after dragging her into his house. According to the FIR, family members and neighbors intervened after several hours and recovered the girl.

Ram Sanehi, a poor man without legal assistance, was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hardoi, on 3rd November 2020, and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Section 376(3) IPC, alongside other minor punishments under IPC Section 342 and POCSO provisions.

The High Court thoroughly scrutinized the prosecution’s evidence and identified major discrepancies.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi highlighted: “The medical report found no injury on any part of the girl’s body, no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, and no spermatozoa or gonococci in pathological tests.”

The Court pointed out glaring contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her parents about the time, place, and manner of occurrence. The statement under Section 161 CrPC was improperly signed by the victim, raising procedural doubts. Moreover, the site of the alleged crime was misidentified between witness accounts and the police site plan.

Further, the Court noted: “The motive of animosity arising from a petty dispute over burning of a saree by the accused, as admitted by prosecution witnesses, casts a shadow on the veracity of the accusation.”

Justice Vidyarthi referenced key Supreme Court rulings including Raj Kumar @ Raju Yadav v. State of Bihar (2006) 9 SCC 589 and Manoj Mishra v. State of U.P. (2021) 10 SCC 763, to emphasize the necessity of scrutinizing evidence, especially when conviction is solely based on testimonies riddled with contradictions and unsupported by medical findings.

Medical Evidence Prevails Over Oral Allegations

The Court reiterated the well-settled legal principle that medical and scientific evidence holds primacy when contradictory to oral testimony. Justice Vidyarthi held:

“In a case alleging repeated rape over several hours, absence of any physical injury or biological evidence strongly suggests false implication.”

Procedural Safeguards and Rights of Unrepresented Accused

Expressing concern over prolonged incarceration without proper representation, the Court observed:

“A person has been made to languish in jail for more than nine years without meaningful legal assistance. Courts cannot shut their eyes to such miscarriages of justice, especially involving marginalized individuals.”

Noting the absence of bail applications despite Court directions and lack of effective representation by the court-appointed amicus curiae, the Court emphasized its constitutional duty under Article 21 to prevent unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Directions and Outcome

The High Court acquitted Ram Sanehi of all charges, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and ordered his immediate release. Justice Vidyarthi also directed:

“The Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, shall ensure the safe return of the appellant to his house and protect his property rights.”

Additionally, the Court ordered refund of any fine amount deposited and noted:

“Minor family disputes cannot justify life-ruining allegations of heinous crimes, particularly in absence of credible evidence.”

In conclusion, the High Court re-affirmed the importance of judicial vigilance against false prosecutions, especially involving poor and unrepresented citizens. Justice Vidyarthi’s ruling sends a strong message that courts must protect individual liberty and prevent abuse of serious criminal allegations for personal vendettas.

Date of Decision: 10th July 2025