SRINAGAR: The Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of a man in a 1982 rape case, rejected his plea for release on probation despite the appeal remaining pending for over four decades, and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 to be paid as compensation to the victim, holding that the trial court had committed a legal error by failing to impose a fine while sentencing him.
Justice Santosh Rai delivered the judgment on June 23, 2026, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1246 of 1983 filed by Rakesh against his conviction by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1982. Advocate Imran Syed appeared for the appellant, while Additional Government Advocate Purushottam Maurya represented the State.
While affirming the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the High Court directed the appellant to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to the victim within one month. In case of default, he will undergo an additional six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The Court also cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds and directed him to surrender before the trial court within ten days to serve the remaining sentence.
The case arose from an FIR lodged on February 23, 1982, by the victim’s father, alleging that on February 22, 1982, his minor daughter was raped by Rakesh and a co-accused, Prakash, in a field when she had gone to answer nature’s call near a canal in Rajapur, Allahabad. Following investigation, both were charge-sheeted under Sections 376 and 323 IPC.
The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC.
Before the High Court, the appellant’s counsel did not press the appeal on merits but sought the benefit of probation, arguing that the appellant was now over 60 years of age, suffered from ailments, had no previous criminal history, and that the appeal had remained pending since 1983.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the conviction was based on reliable evidence and that no appeal had been filed by the State seeking enhancement of sentence.
After examining the evidence, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction.
The Court held that the victim’s testimony was consistent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence, including multiple injuries sustained during the assault.
Rejecting the defence argument that the medical finding of an old torn hymen undermined the prosecution case, Justice Rai observed: “The hymen may be torn due to different factors such as sports, cycling, gymnastics, horse-riding, extraneous physical labor or accidental injury etc… Thus, if the hymen was old torn, an accused cannot be granted benefit of doubt solely on the aforesaid ground, whereas the statement of victim regarding committing rape is ‘wholly reliable’.”
The Court further reiterated the settled legal principle that a conviction for rape can rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence.
“It is not really necessary to insist for corroboration if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be credible. An accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix without any further corroboration,” the judgment said.
Rejecting the request for probation, the Court observed that extending such benefit in rape cases would weaken the deterrent purpose of criminal law.
“It is settled legal principle that the benefit of probation cannot be extended as a matter of right, specially in cases involving heinous offences… Extending probation to an individual… convicted for committing rape… would send a wrong message to the society and dilute the deterrence of criminal law,” the Court held.
Although the High Court noted that the trial court had already taken a lenient view by imposing only three years’ rigorous imprisonment, it found that the sentencing order suffered from a legal infirmity because it neither recorded “adequate and special reasons” for awarding a sentence below the statutory minimum nor imposed any fine.
“The Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law by imposing a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment… without recording any ‘adequate and special reasons’…,” the Court observed.
It further held that the omission to impose a fine was contrary to the sentencing framework under Section 376 IPC.
“Since fine constitutes an ‘integral part’ of the sentence under Section 376 IPC, this Court finds it expedient to impose the same,” Justice Rai said.
Accordingly, while leaving the substantive sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment unchanged, the Court imposed a fine of Rs 50,000, directing that the amount be paid to the victim as compensation or, if she is no longer alive, to her legal representatives.
The Court also directed the trial court to ensure disbursement of the compensation through bank accounts after due verification and ordered compliance within two months.
-x-
