Can a gang rape conviction survive if the FIR does not mention rape? The Patna High Court ruled that the omission of the allegation in the victim’s first statement, coupled with later improvements and contradictions, created serious doubt about the prosecution’s case.
GANG RAPE CASE PATNA: The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of five men for gang rape in a 34-year-old case after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Shailendra Singh held that there were major contradictions in the evidence and important gaps in the investigation. However, the Court upheld the conviction of the accused for assault and offences under the SC/ST Act.
The case related to an incident that allegedly took place in January 1992 following a long-standing land dispute. According to the prosecution, the accused entered the victim’s house, assaulted her and her mother-in-law, and later committed gang rape. Based on these allegations, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 323 and 376 of the IPC, along with Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
While hearing the appeals, the High Court noticed that the victim’s first statement, recorded within hours of the incident, mentioned only the assault and made no allegation of gang rape. The allegation of rape surfaced several months later in her statement recorded before the Magistrate. The Court found this to be a significant improvement in the prosecution’s case.
The Court also found contradictions in the statements of the victim and her husband regarding the events after the incident. Further, the two villagers named as eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution during the trial and were declared hostile.
Another important factor considered by the Court was that the Investigating Officer was never examined. No site plan was prepared, the alleged weapons were not recovered and no material evidence was collected, which created serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court reiterated that a conviction based only on the testimony of the prosecutrix is possible only when she is a “sterling witness” whose evidence remains consistent and inspires complete confidence. The Court also relied on the observation that:
“The solitary version of the chief examination of PW 4, the prosecutrix cannot be taken as gospel truth… and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction.”
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, observing:
“The investigating officer… should have been examined… His examination by the prosecution was necessary to show that there had been a fair investigation.”
After examining the entire record, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence of gang rape beyond reasonable doubt. However, it found sufficient evidence to prove that an assault had taken place during the incident.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeals. It set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the IPC but upheld the conviction under Sections 148 and 323 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. Since the accused had already undergone the remaining sentences, the Court directed their immediate release, if they were not required in any other case.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED
| Law / Section | Purpose | How it Applied in This Case |
| Section 148 IPC | Punishes rioting while armed with a deadly weapon. | Conviction upheld as the armed assault was proved. |
| Section 323 IPC | Punishes voluntarily causing simple hurt. | Upheld because the victim’s injuries were proved. |
| Section 376(2)(g) IPC (Old Provision) | Punishes the offence of gang rape. | Conviction set aside due to lack of reliable evidence. |
| Section 147 IPC | Punishes the offence of rioting. | Included in the FIR. |
| Section 149 IPC | Makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offences committed in furtherance of the common object. | Invoked in the chargesheet. |
| Section 341 IPC | Punishes wrongful restraint. | Alleged in the FIR. |
| Section 448 IPC | Punishes house trespass. | Applied as the accused allegedly entered the victim’s house. |
| Section 307 IPC | Punishes attempt to murder. | Included in the chargesheet but not sustained. |
| Section 3(i)(xi), SC/ST Act (Old Provision) | Punishes assault or criminal force against an SC/ST woman with intent to outrage her modesty. | Conviction upheld by the High Court. |
| Section 3(i)(x), SC/ST Act (Old Provision) | Punishes intentional insult or intimidation of an SC/ST person. | Mentioned in the FIR. |
| Section 3(i)(v), SC/ST Act (Old Provision) | Applies where an offence is committed against an SC/ST person because of caste. | Included in the chargesheet. |
| Section 3(i)(xii), SC/ST Act (Old Provision) | Punishes sexual exploitation of an SC/ST woman. | Included in the chargesheet but not upheld. |
| Section 164 CrPC | Allows a Judicial Magistrate to record a statement. | The rape allegation first appeared in this statement. |
| Section 161 CrPC | Governs police-recorded statements during investigation. | The Court limited its evidentiary value. |
| Section 313 CrPC | Allows the accused to explain the evidence against them. | Statements of the accused were recorded. |
| Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Allows contradiction of a witness using previous statements. | The Court found the procedure was not properly followed. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: Gauri Shankar Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
- Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2977 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3048 of 2023
- Date of Judgment: 16 June 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh
- Counsel:
- For Appeallants (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2977 of 2023): Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate, andMr. Avinash Raj, Advocate
- For Appellants (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3048 of 2023): Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Binay Krishna, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP)
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- An allegation alone cannot replace proof. Criminal conviction must be based on credible and reliable evidence, not merely on accusations.
- The first version of the incident matters. Courts closely examine later improvements or major changes in a complainant’s statements.
- A fair investigation is essential. Missing evidence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and investigative lapses can seriously weaken the prosecution’s case.
- Sole testimony must inspire complete confidence. A conviction can rest on a single witness only when the testimony is consistent, trustworthy, and free from material contradictions.
- Courts must protect both victims and the accused. While genuine victims deserve justice, the criminal justice system must also prevent convictions where guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.