Patna High Court Sets Aside Conviction Over 'Afterthought' Gang Rape Allegation

The Patna High Court recently set aside the conviction of five accused under Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code, holding that the victim had developed her gang rape allegation in her statement recorded by her before the Judicial Magistrate as an afterthought.

As per the victim, she alleged that accused persons armed with lathis, a wooden club (kunda), and iron rods, had forcibly entered her house and assaulted her as a result of the which, she sustained injuries on her right cheek, abdomen, back, and ribs and started bleeding. The motive behind the occurrence was a dispute relating to land.

A formal FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 448, 323 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act, which set the criminal law in motion. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 448, 307 & 376 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(v)(x) & (xii) of the SC/ST Act.

Justice Shailendra Singh noted that the victim did not remain consistent to her stand with regard to the last part of her allegation of gang rape.

High Court found that the victim, had deposed in her examination-in-chief that after the commission of gang rape she managed to come at her house and fell down in the courtyard and thereafter, her husband came and took her to the hospital for treatment, while she stated before the Judicial Magistrate in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that after the commission of gang rape and causing injuries to her private part by the front barrel portion of the gun, she became unconscious and she could not know about the subsequent incidents and developments and she gained consciousness in the morning at 8:00 A.M. and thereafter, she herself stood and came at courtyard of her house.

"As per the prosecution story narrated in the fardbeyan, two co-villagers of the victim, namely, Shivnath Ram and Dodha Ram came at the place of occurrence when the offences were being committed and they witnessed the occurrence and both the said persons were produced by the prosecution but they did not support the case of the prosecution and went hostile. The victim's husband who witnessed the initial part of the occurrence, if the testimony of the victim is taken to be true, stated in the cross-examination that at the time of occurrence there was no light," the High Court further noted.

Justice Singh found that it was an admitted position that at the time of commission of the alleged occurrence there was a land dispute in between the victim’s family and the appellants and civil litigation had also been running for a long time in between them.

"The appellants’ counsels have taken the defence that on account of the said land dispute, a simple occurrence of marpit took place in between both the parties and all the injuries found on the person of the victim (informant) were opined to be simple in nature though, one injury on the private part of the victim was found but the same was not in such a nature to suggest the commission of gang rape and encircling the front portion of the barrel of a gun inside the vagina of the victim and the allegations were exaggerated by the victim with revengeful attitude on account of the land dispute. The said defence appears to be believable in the background of the surrounding...," the single judge bench noted.

circumstances appearing from the prosecution evidences

While partly allowing the appeal filed by accused persons, the court noted that the prosecution succeeded to establish the case of a simple marpit and atrocities bringing the alleged acts of the accused appellants in the purview of section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, so, the conviction of the appellants for the offences under sections 148 and 323 of the IPC and sections 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was proper.

"The appellants are in judicial custody and they have already served the sentences imposed upon them for the offences under sections 148 and 323 of the IPC and section 3(i) (xi) of the SC/ST Act, so, they are directed to be released at once if their custody is not required in any other case," Justice Singh went on to order.

Case Title: Gauri Shankar Choudhary vs State of Bihar

Judgment Date: June 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Shailendra Singh