The supreme court of India on Thursday acquitted two men accused in a 26 year old rape case after observing that there was no evidence on record against them.

The accused, identified as Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal and Gian Singh, were incriminated with charges of raping the prosecutrix.

Also Read: Supreme Court to conduct day-to-day hearing of pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370 from today

Earlier, a trial court in Punjab had acquitted Gian Singh while convicting the other two accused under Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The Punjab and Haryana court had upheld the trial court judgment. 

A Supreme Court bench led by Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed that the story projected by the prosecution that she was raped by Gian Singh on July 23, 1996, was disbelieved by the trial court.

Also Read:Absolute breakdown of law and order’: SC slams Manipur Police; summons DGP on August 7

“Gian Singh was acquitted by the trial court noticing the stand of the prosecutrix that there was a party faction in the village and both the parties belonged to different sections. The same reasoning will apply to the appellants as well for the reason that in the FIR, the stand taken by the prosecutrix is same in respect of all the accused, as far as the allegation of party faction is concerned”, the bench stated, according to Live Law.

The apex court also noted that the victim had earlier claimed that she was allegedly detained in a room in an under-construction haveli of Gian Singh and that she neither had food nor drank water for three days. However, the medical examination showed otherwise.

“The stand of the prosecutrix in her statement was that she neither drank water, nor had she eaten anything for three days. She remained in the illegal custody of the accused and was raped repeatedly for three days, against her wishes. When considered in the light of her medical examination, the said statement is falsified as the doctor noted that she was well-built and well-nourished,” it stated.

The court also noted that no external/internal injury was found on the victim’s body and that the witness statements had certain discrepancies.

Read Next