This criminal appeal was filed by the victim under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Unnao, which acquitted the accused (Hitender Pratap Singh @ Gaurav Kumar) of charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed rape, recorded the act on a mobile phone to blackmail the victim, and later conspired with others to traffic her to Delhi, from where she managed to alert her family and return. The High Court of Allahabad thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence, noting material contradictions, improvements, and the victim’s failure to qualify as a “sterling witness”. Finding that the trial court’s view acquitting the accused was plausible, logical, and supported by the record, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the double presumption of innocence that strengthens upon an acquittal.
- Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittals:
- While the appellate court possesses full powers to review and re-appreciate evidence, an order of acquittal reinforces the foundational presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
- Interference with an acquittal is warranted only when the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable, which was not the case here.
- Flaws and Contradictions in the Prosecution Story:
- The victim gave contradictory statements regarding how she reached the spot; the First Information Report (FIR) suggested she did not know the accused was in the mustard field, whereas her testimony indicated she went there voluntarily to meet him.
- Her actions—such as watching the alleged recorded video alongside the accused at leisure after the incident—negated her claims of lack of consent, especially given that she was a major and did not raise an alarm despite living near populated areas.
- Absence of Corroborative and Material Evidence:
- The allegations of repeated rapes and extortion via a video clip remained bald assertions, as the Investigating Officer recovered no such video and exonerated co-accused Deepika.
- The prosecution failed to examine crucial independent witnesses (such as the co-passengers or individuals she traveled with during her return from Delhi), and the timeline of her disappearance contradicted her father’s deposition.
- Standard of Proof:
- The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and trustworthy evidence, rendering the trial court’s acquittal entirely reasonable and immune to reversal.
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 22
X Victim / Complainant Of Fir No. 68/2019 Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another (D.O.J. July 16, 2026)
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 22 click here to view full text of judgment
