Prayagraj: After 38 years of his conviction in a rape case, the Allahabad high court set aside the conviction in an appeal filed by the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the survivor, being a major, was aware of her actions and was a consenting party.In this backdrop, Justice Abdul Shahid allowed the criminal appeal of the accused, Subhash, who was convicted by a Meerut sessions court in 1988 for rape and kidnapping.Since the accused was on bail during the trial, the court directed that he need not surrender, and his sureties were accordingly discharged.The present criminal appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated Sept 26, 1988, passed by the Vth additional sessions judge, Meerut, under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping a woman to compel her marriage or force illicit intercourse), and 376 (rape) of the IPC in a case registered at Transport Nagar police station in Meerut.Counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident occurred on Feb 25, 1986, whereas the FIR was lodged a day later. It was further submitted that no injuries were found on the woman’s body during the medical examination, nor was there any specific evidence of rape. The medical examination also indicated that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse.He further submitted that the woman appeared to be a consenting party, as she travelled to several districts without raising an alarm or attempting to lodge a complaint. It was argued that the findings recorded by the trial court were illegal and perverse. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated Sept 26, 1988, were liable to be set aside and the criminal appeal deserved to be allowed.However, the state counsel opposed the criminal appeal on the ground that the woman was an aggrieved party who had duly contested the sessions trial and that she was a sterling witness whose testimony alone was sufficient for the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Therefore, the criminal appeal was liable to be dismissed.While setting aside the trial court’s conviction, the high court, in its judgment dated Oct 7, observed: “The prosecution story fails to inspire confidence, as there are glaring inconsistencies throughout the prosecution’s case. It is neither supported nor corroborated by the medical evidence, nor is it corroborated by the oral evidence on record.
