Rajasthan High Court sets aside gang rape conviction, cites prosecutrix’s contradictions and absence of forensic evidence

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the gang rape convictions of two men sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in Churu, holding that the prosecutrix’s testimony was contradicted by her own contemporaneous statement, materially falsified by the Investigating Officer, and unsupported by any medical or forensic corroboration.

A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that while a conviction for a sexual offence can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must be “trustworthy, cogent, consistent, and of sterling quality” — a standard the Court found wanting on a holistic re-appreciation of the record.

The bench held:

“It is well settled that conviction in an offence relating to sexual assault can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, even in the absence of independent corroboration, provided her testimony is found to be trustworthy, cogent, consistent, and of sterling quality. However, where the testimony suffers from material contradictions, inherent improbabilities, improvements, omissions, and is not supported by medical, scientific, or circumstantial evidence, the Court is under a solemn duty to examine the evidence with greater circumspection before recording a finding of guilt.”

The appeals had been preferred under Section 374(2) CrPC by Vikram Singh and Veer Singh @ Bunty against the judgment dated 29.08.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Rajgarh, District Churu, which had convicted them under Sections 343 and 376D of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life with a fine of Rs 1,00,000 each, along with one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 343.

The case arose from FIR No. 308/2020 lodged at Police Station Rajgarh on 05.10.2020 on the basis of a written report (Ex.P-24) by the prosecutrix. She alleged that on 24.09.2020 she had met one Vikram Poonia at Rajgarh bus stand while going to fill her SSC examination form, that he had induced her to accompany him on the pretext of helping with the form, and that she had thereafter been forcibly taken in a car with three other men to a house at Rajgarh where each had committed rape upon her, while video recordings and photographs were made and intoxicants administered. She further alleged that she was subsequently taken to Hotel Royal Shiva Palace, Jaipur, where five other men assaulted her, after which she was kept by co-accused Mukesh Gurjar near Neem Ka Thana for about a week before being rescued by police on 01.10.2020.

Counsel for the appellants — Arjun Singh, Bhupendra Singh and Sumer Singh — relied on the prosecutrix’s contemporaneous statement (Ex.D-1) recorded immediately upon her recovery, in which she had stated that she had voluntarily left home being annoyed with her parents, had travelled from village Nawa to Rajgarh on her own on 24.09.2020, had proceeded to Jaipur by bus, had stayed at a hotel there for four to five days, and that nothing untoward had happened with her. They argued that the elaborate version subsequently introduced in the written report after a delay of eleven days — alleging abduction, gang rape, videography and blackmail — stood materially falsified by the prosecutrix’s own first version, by medical evidence disclosing no injury on her body or private parts, and by the FSL report which detected no biological material connecting the accused with the alleged offence.

The Court attached “immense importance” to the contemporaneous statement Ex.D-1, observing that it had been made at the earliest available opportunity, free from any allegation of coercion, threat or intimidation by any accused person, and contained “not even a whisper regarding kidnapping, wrongful confinement, administration of intoxicants, gang rape, videography, or blackmailing”. The prosecution, the bench held, had failed to furnish any plausible explanation as to how a prosecutrix who had initially denied any untoward incident subsequently came forward, after several days, with an elaborate account involving multiple accused persons, multiple places, repeated sexual assaults, videography, blackmailing and conspiracy.

The very genesis of the prosecution case, the bench found, stood falsified by the Investigating Officer himself. PW-18 Rampratap Vishnoi admitted in cross-examination that the allegation of abduction in a car was incorrect, that the prosecutrix had in fact accompanied Vikram Singh on a motorcycle, and that she had travelled to Jaipur by bus on her own. He further admitted that material portions of Ex.P-24 — including the allegations of videography, photography, and conspiracy between Veer Singh @ Bunty and the other co-accused — were found to be incorrect during investigation, and that no objectionable photographs, videos or electronic material had been recovered from any accused.

“These categorical admissions made by the Investigating Officer strike at the very root of the prosecution case, materially falsify the foundational allegations contained in the FIR, and create serious doubt regarding the truthfulness and reliability of the prosecution story as projected before the Court,” the bench observed.

The Court found that the prosecutrix’s voluntary furnishing of her Aadhaar card at the reception of Hotel Royal Shiva Palace, Jaipur — a fact admitted by the Investigating Officer and reflected in the hotel register (Ex.D-4) — appeared wholly unnatural and inconsistent with the ordinary course of human conduct if she had in fact been kept in wrongful confinement under the influence of intoxicating substances. This circumstance, the bench held, lent “probable support to the defence version that the prosecutrix was accompanying the accused persons of her own free will”.

Medical and forensic evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case. PW-2 Dr. Pravesh Kumari, who examined the prosecutrix, deposed that no injury whatsoever was found on her body or private parts, and that she could not opine whether forcible sexual intercourse had taken place. The FSL report (Ex.P-74) further established that no semen, blood, spermatozoa or other biological material was detected from the vaginal swab, smear slides, pubic hair or other samples of the prosecutrix, and that the DNA profile of Veer Singh @ Bunty did not match the material allegedly recovered from the hotel premises.

The bench also flagged significant omissions in investigation. No CCTV footage had been collected from Rajgarh bus stand, Jaipur bus stand, hotel premises or surrounding areas. The prosecutrix’s grandfather Lokram — who had lodged the Missing Person Report (Ex.P-76) — had not been examined, giving rise to an adverse inference. One Devendra Poonia, specifically named in the FIR as an active participant, had not been charge-sheeted with no explanation offered. And despite the FIR alleging abduction and preparation of obscene videos for blackmail, no charges had been framed under Sections 362 or 365 IPC, nor under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2025 in so far as it related to Vikram Singh and Veer Singh @ Bunty, acquitting them of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt. The accused-appellants, who were in custody, were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. In view of Section 481 BNSS, 2023, they were further directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each and a surety bond of the like amount before the trial court, effective for six months, undertaking to appear before the Supreme Court in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed.

Title: Veer Singh @ Bunty v State of Rajasthan (connected with Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan)

Case No.: D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 326/2025 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 316/2025

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:23706-DB]

Counsel for appellants: Arjun Singh, Bhupendra Singh, Sumer Singh

Counsel for respondent: C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor