After 38 years, Allahabad high court sets aside conviction in rape case

Justice Abdul Shahid allowed the criminal appeal of accused, who was convicted by the sessions court of Meerut in the year 1988 in rape and kidnapping case.

The Allahabad high court, after 38 years of conviction in a rape case, set aside the conviction in appeal moved by the accused - Subhash, saying that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, victim being major was fully aware of her action and was a consenting party.

In its October 7 judgment, the Allahabad high court set aside the trial court conviction. (HT File Photo)

In this backdrop, Justice Abdul Shahid allowed the criminal appeal of accused, who was convicted by the sessions court of Meerut in the year 1988 in rape and kidnapping case.

Since the accused was on bail during the pendency of the case, the court directed that he need not surrender and his securities were accordingly discharged.

‘Victim appears to be consenting party’

The present criminal appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated September 26, 1988 passed by a sessions Judge of Meerut under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping a woman to compel her marriage or force illicit intercourse) and 376 (rape) of IPC at police station - Transport Nagar, Meerut district.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident occurred on February 25, 1986, whereas the FIR was lodged with delay on February 26, 1986.

It was further submitted that no injuries were found on victim’s body during the medical examination, nor was there any specific evidence of rape.

He further submitted that the victim appeared to be a consenting party, as she travelled to several districts without raising an alarm or attempting to lodge a complaint. Hence the impugned judgment and order dated September 26, 1988 is liable to be set aside, and the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed.

However, the state counsel opposed the criminal appeal on the ground that the victim was an aggrieved party who duly contested the sessions trial and that she is a sterling witness whose testimony alone is sufficient for the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

In its October 7 judgment, the high court set aside the trial court conviction.