Introduction:

In the case titled State of U.P. vs. Pushpendra Alias Gabbar S/O Brahamdutt, the Allahabad High Court revisited a 2016 incident where an 18-year-old woman was allegedly raped at gunpoint. The trial court had previously acquitted the accused, citing inconsistencies and a lack of medical evidence. However, the High Court, with Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Sandeep Jain presiding, found the trial court’s reasoning flawed and emphasised the importance of the victim’s consistent testimony and the psychological coercion involved.

Arguments:

Prosecution’s Stand:

The prosecution detailed that on September 11, 2016, the victim was at her apartment with her fiancé and younger brother when the accused forcibly entered with a firearm. He compelled the victim and her fiancé to undress, filmed them, and then raped the victim after sending her fiancé away. The victim’s consistent statements from the FIR to the trial were highlighted, and the prosecution argued that the absence of physical injuries did not negate the occurrence of rape, especially given the psychological and physical coercion involved.

Defence’s Stand:

The defense argued that the FIR was delayed and that there was existing enmity between the accused and the victim’s family, suggesting a motive for false accusation. They also pointed to the lack of medical evidence supporting the claim of rape and inconsistencies in the victim’s statements.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court found the victim’s testimony credible and consistent, noting that she had been subjected to extensive cross-examination without her account being discredited. The court emphasised that the absence of physical injuries does not imply consent, especially when the victim is overpowered mentally and physically. The bench criticised the trial court for dismissing the victim’s account based on minor inconsistencies and lack of medical evidence. The High Court convicted the accused under Sections 376, 452, and 506 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of imprisonment. However, considering he had already served six years, nine months, and eleven days, the court directed the Jail Superintendent to calculate any remaining sentence with remission and inform the accused within 30 days. The accused, currently on bail, was ordered to surrender by July 30 if any sentence remained.