Ridiculous To Expect Bodily Injuries On Rape Survivor Who Was Subjugated & Overpowered Physically: Allahabad HC

The bench also observed that it would be 'ridiculous' to accept the submission that a rape survivor, who had been subjugated and 'overpowered' mentally, psychologically and physically, must be shown to have suffered internal and external injuries to make her deposition trustworthy.

With these significant remarks, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Sandeep Jain, wherein Justice Jain wrote a separate yet concurring judgment, found the accused guilty of committing rape of the victim at gun point.

In its 54-page judgment, the bench explicitly found faults with the findings of the trial court, which disbelieved the prosecution's case on the grounds that there was previous enmity between the accused and the informant, the FIR had been registered with inordinate delay and the medical report of the 'X' did not support the offence/incident of rape.

"...the deposition of 'X' was sufficient to offer conviction since her deposition stands on the higher footing as of an injured witness. Unless any reasonable doubt emerged in her deposition, no other conclusion except that of guilt of the appellant, may have been reached by the learned trial Court...", the Court observed.

As per the prosecution's case, on September 11, 2016, the victim 'X' was at her apartment with her fiancé 'S' and younger brother 'R' when the accused forcibly entered with a firearm. He forced 'X' and 'S' to undress and filmed them naked and after that, 'S' was made to dress and leave the accommodation and then 'X' was raped despite her resistance.

Thereafter, the accused threatened to push her off the third floor if she didn't accompany him. Complying with her diktats, she accompanied the accused, and she was taken to a different place, where she was left in a disoriented state. She eventually returned home and informed her family about the incident.

Hearing the government's appeal against the acquittal of the accused, the Court, in its Judgment noted that the narration of the incident had remained consistent from the stage of the FIR being lodged, to the statement under Section 161 CrPC and statements under Section 164 CrPC and even till the stage of trial.

The Court further noted that at the trial, the victim was subjected to extensive cross-examination on many dates, where her testimony remained unshakable and minor inconsistencies present in her statements were not of such nature which could not be overlooked.

Regarding the finding of the trial court that there was an existing dispute between the parties, the Court said that the same could not be a stand-alone reason to discredit the prosecution story, which was otherwise duly proven.

“The nature of quarrel was neither specified nor it was shown to be such as may have, prompted 'X' and her family members to therefore rush to make a false accusation against the appellant. Neither the nature of the quarrel nor its date and time were proven. The F.I.R. against the accused is of a heinous offence of rape. Evidence exists both on the strength of ocular evidence offered by 'X' as also other material, in support of the prosecution story,” the Court noted.

Regarding the absence of injuries on the victim's body, the Court opined that once it had been proven that she was overpowered or subjugated to the point that her resistance stood broken down or negated, the proof of occurrence through injury was not required.

The bench added that absence of injury on private parts of the 'X', absence of spermatozoa in vaginal smear did not make the prosecution case doubtful and that even if the 'X' was accustomed to sexual intercourse, even then she could not have been raped.

"...evidence was led by the prosecution to establish that the resistance had been neutralized by establishing that 'R' the younger brother of 'X' aged about 12 years was assaulted and forced out of the 'apartment' before 'X' was filmed nude and thereafter, her fiance, 'S' was forced out of the 'apartment' under the threat of a gun, before rape was committed on 'X'. Once the victim, who is 18 years of age, had been thus subjugated and overpowered mentally, psychologically and physically, to accept the submission that she must be shown to have suffered internal and external injuries, would be ridiculous," the bench noted.

Against this backdrop, and relying upon the unshaken testimony of the rape victim, the Court overturned the acquittal order and held the accused guilty of offence under Sections 376, 452 and 506 IPC and sentence him to 7 years of imprisonment (which is the minimum sentence for Section 376 IPC as the provision stood in 2016).

However, noting that the accused has remained confined for 6 years 9 months and 11 days (actual), the Court directed the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Etawah (UP) to calculate the sentence already undergone with remission and inform the accused via the trial court within 30 days. The accused, currently on bail, has been asked to surrender by July 30 in case any sentence remains.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Senior Advocate VP Srivastava assisted by Advocate Mukesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party: AGA LD Rajbhar

Case title – State of U.P. vs. Pushpendra Alias Gabbar S/O Brahamdutt 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 160

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 160

Click Here To Read/Download Order