Allahabad High Court acquits man in 1986 rape case after 38 years

The Allahabad High Court set aside Subhash's conviction in a 1986 rape and kidnapping case. The court said the evidence was unreliable and consent could not be ruled out.

In Short

• Court found major inconsistencies in prosecution and medical evidence records
• Woman was over 19, influencing the court's view on consent
• Defence cited absence of injuries and no specific proof of rape

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a man’s conviction in a 1986 rape and kidnapping case, saying the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court also said the woman, who was over 19 at the time of the incident, appeared to have been a consenting party.

Justice Abdul Shahid allowed the criminal appeal filed by Subhash against his 1988 conviction by a Meerut sessions court, nearly 38 years after the trial court judgment. In its October 7 judgment, the high court said that as Subhash had remained on bail during the proceedings, he did not need to surrender and his sureties would stand discharged.

The appeal challenged the September 26, 1988 judgment of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, which had convicted Subhash under IPC Sections 363, 366 and 376. According to the appellant’s counsel, the incident took place on February 25, 1986, while the FIR was lodged a day later.

The defence argued that the woman had suffered no injuries and that her medical examination did not provide specific evidence of rape. It also said the medical report showed that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. The defence further argued that her conduct suggested consent, as she travelled across several districts without raising an alarm or trying to lodge a complaint.

Opposing the appeal, the state counsel said the woman was the aggrieved party who had duly contested the sessions trial and was a “sterling witness”, and that her testimony alone was enough to sustain the conviction and sentence. The high court, however, disagreed and said, “The entire prosecution story fails to inspire confidence, as there are glaring inconsistencies throughout the prosecution’s case.” It added that the prosecution case was neither supported nor corroborated by medical evidence or the oral evidence on record.

The court also noted the woman’s conduct and observed that she was over 19 years old at the time of the incident and that “it cannot be ruled out that she was fully aware of her actions, understood the nature and consequences of her conduct, and was a consenting party”. The court accordingly allowed the appeal and acquitted Subhash of the offences for which he had been convicted.

- Ends