In Brief
A woman accused two men of rape after an alleged incident on a busy roadway near a market. The Trial Court and High Court convicted both men under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the victim's testimony unreliable due to glaring inconsistencies: no seminal stains despite claimed rape, no injuries except a minor cheek bruise, and contradiction by the victim's own husband who denied she reported rape to him. The alleged crime occurred in a busy public area, yet no witness saw the forcible lifting. Lacking medical corroboration, clear identification, and credible corroboration, the Court acquitted the accused, finding the case a revenge plot motivated by prior business rivalry.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.