Taxi Drivers Sentenced to 20 Years for Alleged Gang Rape Acquitted After Global Positioning System Records Contradicted Pickup Story: Delhi High Court
Facts
The prosecution alleged that during the intervening night of November 14 and 15, 2017, the complainant boarded a taxi bearing registration number DL-1ZA-3298 for travelling from Ansal Plaza to her home in Rohini.
According to the complainant, the taxi was driven by one of the accused, who subsequently picked up the other accused. The men allegedly threatened and assaulted her before taking the vehicle to a secluded, jungle-like location in Greater Noida.
The complainant alleged that between approximately 1:30 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., the two accused consumed alcohol, removed her clothes and subjected her to repeated sexual assault, oral sex and physical violence inside the vehicle. She also claimed that they recorded the acts on a mobile phone.
The accused allegedly took her jewellery, ₹12,000 in cash and mobile phone before abandoning her near Pari Chowk, Noida. She eventually reached home and later reported the incident to the police.
A criminal case was registered at Hauz Khas Police Station. After investigation, Gaurav and Praveen Kumar alias Pankaj were prosecuted for offences including abduction, gang rape, assault, criminal intimidation and robbery.
On December 10, 2020, the trial court convicted both men under Sections 365, 376D, 323, 506 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
For the offence of gang rape, each accused was sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000. They were also awarded separate terms of imprisonment for robbery, abduction, criminal intimidation and assault, with all sentences directed to run concurrently.
Both accused approached the Delhi High Court in separate criminal appeals challenging their convictions and sentences. They maintained that the complainant had accompanied them voluntarily, that the sexual acts were consensual and that she had subsequently implicated them falsely to extort money.
Issues
- Whether the complainant’s testimony was sufficiently reliable to sustain the convictions without independent corroboration.
- Whether material inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, conduct and account of the incident created reasonable doubt.
- Whether the Global Positioning System location records of the taxi contradicted the alleged time and place of abduction.
- Whether the absence of the alleged assault videos and non-recovery of most of the stolen property weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the telephone records and the conduct of the complainant and her husband were consistent with the prosecution’s narrative.
- Whether the presumption of absence of consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied to a charge under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the trial court had wrongly interpreted the vehicle-location evidence and substituted its own conclusions for the testimony of the prosecution witness.
- Whether the prosecution had established the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that the complainant’s account contained serious contradictions which could not be treated as minor or immaterial discrepancies.
Although she alleged that the accused had recorded videos of the repeated sexual assault and sent or threatened to send them to her relatives, no such video was recovered or produced during investigation or trial. The investigating officer had examined the mobile phone but found no objectionable material.
The complainant alleged that her mobile phone had been taken away by the accused. At the same time, she claimed to have received video calls on the same mobile number and to have taken screenshots of one accused’s photograph and forwarded them to a police officer. The defence argued that these versions were mutually inconsistent.
Except for a mobile phone allegedly recovered from one accused, the complainant’s earrings, mangalsutra, anklets, bangles, purse and cash were never recovered.
The appellants relied on call-detail records showing continuous telephonic contact between the complainant and her husband during the relevant period. Approximately 19 calls were exchanged between 8:10 p.m. and 12:48 a.m., including several calls during the period when she was allegedly being taken against her will to the crime scene.
The complainant’s husband admitted receiving a call when she was allegedly in danger. However, he neither contacted the police nor immediately sought assistance. The defence submitted that this conduct was inconsistent with the prosecution’s narrative.
Different versions were also given regarding the weapon allegedly used. The initial police call referred to a pistol, another statement referred to a knife, and the medical record stated that no weapon or object was used during the alleged sexual assault.
The defence placed considerable reliance on the Global Positioning System records of the taxi. The relevant witness testified that between 10:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.—the period during which the complainant claimed to have boarded the taxi at Ansal Plaza—the vehicle was travelling through Greater Noida and Noida and was not at Ansal Plaza.
Official bus records were also produced. The complainant claimed that she waited at Sarai Kale Khan bus stand for approximately two-and-a-half hours but could not find a bus to Mehandipur Balaji. The records showed that several buses departed on that route during the relevant period, including buses at 8:30 p.m., 9:00 p.m., 9:15 p.m., 9:30 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 10:15 p.m., 10:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.
The appellants therefore argued that the prosecution story was contradicted by objective evidence and that they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution maintained that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that no interference with the trial court’s judgment was warranted.
It argued that, under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, once the complainant testified that the sexual intercourse was without her consent, the Court was required to presume absence of consent. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut that presumption through convincing evidence.
Relying on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the prosecution submitted that courts must remain conscious of the stigma and humiliation faced by survivors of sexual assault. A woman would ordinarily not expose herself to such social consequences by making a false allegation.
It was contended that the complainant’s testimony alone could support a conviction and that corroboration should not be demanded as a routine requirement. Minor discrepancies should also not result in rejection of an otherwise reliable account.
Counsel representing the complainant argued that the conduct of the accused was also relevant. It was alleged that one accused retained the complainant’s mobile phone and subsequently used it to make a video call to her husband for threatening the family and demanding money.
The complainant’s counsel defended the trial court’s interpretation of the Global Positioning System records. It was argued that the taxi subsequently moved through parts of Delhi near the alleged pickup location and that the prosecution was not required to establish the precise spot of abduction with mathematical accuracy.
Analysis of the Law
Reliability of a sexual-assault survivor’s testimony
A conviction for rape may be based solely on the survivor’s testimony when it is trustworthy, convincing and inspires confidence. The law does not require corroboration merely because the allegation concerns a sexual offence.
The survivor is not an accomplice. Her testimony must ordinarily be evaluated on the same footing as that of an injured witness, without stereotypes or an automatic presumption of suspicion.
This principle, however, does not mean that every statement made by a complainant must be accepted mechanically. When the record contains compelling circumstances affecting reliability, the Court must examine the evidence carefully.
Material contradictions affecting the origin of the prosecution story, the presence of the accused or vehicle at the alleged location, and the probability of the incident cannot be dismissed as minor discrepancies.
Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act
Section 114A raises a statutory presumption concerning absence of consent in prosecutions for specified categories of rape falling within clauses of Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court held that this presumption was not attracted merely because the charge was one of gang rape under Section 376D. No charge had been framed under any of the specified clauses of Section 376(2).
Consequently, the trial court erred by applying Section 114A to the case. The prosecution remained responsible for proving the absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
Even where Section 114A applies, the Court must still determine whether the foundational facts necessary for invoking the presumption have been established.
Meaning of consent
Consent under Section 375 requires voluntary and informed participation after the person has exercised a genuine choice between resistance and assent.
Submission caused by fear, coercion or misconception is not consent. At the same time, the question of consent must be decided from the evidence and surrounding circumstances of each case, including the conduct of the parties before, during and after the alleged incident.
Benefit of doubt
A criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. When reliable objective evidence materially contradicts the prosecution’s version and the remaining evidence does not remove that contradiction, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The benefit-of-doubt rule does not require the accused to conclusively prove an alternative version. It is sufficient if the prosecution’s evidence fails to establish guilt to the required legal standard.
Treatment of electronic and objective evidence
The vehicle’s location records were proved through the prosecution’s own witness. His testimony that the taxi was not at Ansal Plaza at the relevant time remained unchallenged.
A trial court cannot disregard such testimony and independently draw an adverse factual conclusion from the underlying data without confronting the witness or giving the defence a fair opportunity to address that conclusion.
Precedent Analysis
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393
This decision recognises that a sexual-assault survivor is not an accomplice and that reliable testimony from the survivor can support a conviction without routine corroboration.
The High Court accepted this principle but clarified that it applies when the testimony inspires confidence. It does not prevent a court from examining material contradictions or objective evidence that creates genuine doubt.
Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170
The Supreme Court held that a rape conviction may rest solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony when the court is satisfied about its truthfulness and no circumstances cast doubt on her reliability.
The Delhi High Court applied this qualification and found that the present record contained several circumstances casting doubt on the prosecution account.
Rajoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 858
This precedent cautions that the principle favouring reliance on a prosecutrix’s testimony cannot be applied universally or mechanically. A false accusation can also cause serious harm to an accused, and the evidence must therefore be assessed on the facts of each case.
The High Court relied on this balanced approach while examining the contradictions and objective evidence.
Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 9
The judgment reiterates that women ordinarily do not make sexual-assault allegations lightly because of the social consequences involved. Corroboration is unnecessary where the survivor’s evidence is credible and confidence-inspiring.
The High Court did not dispute this principle but found that the complainant’s evidence in the present case was materially undermined.
Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2024 SC 3091
This decision explains that a rape charge must clearly identify whether it falls under Section 376(1) or a particular clause of Section 376(2). That distinction determines whether the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act is available.
Applying this ruling, the High Court held that Section 114A was not attracted to the charge under Section 376D in the present case.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC 113
These decisions explain that consent involves an active and reasoned exercise of choice. Whether consent existed must be inferred from the evidence and probabilities of the individual case.
Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 203
The Supreme Court explained that consent obtained through fear of injury or misconception of fact is not valid consent. The accused must also know or have reason to believe that the consent resulted from such fear or misconception.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram, (2000) 7 SCC 224
This decision distinguishes consent from mere submission. Submission of the body under fear or terror cannot be treated as voluntary consent.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
The defence relied upon this decision concerning the exacting standard required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon must be fully established and consistent only with the accused’s guilt.
Moidu K. v. State of Kerala, 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888
The High Court noted that the trial court had not separately heard the accused under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after completion of the prosecution evidence. However, such non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the trial unless serious and substantial prejudice is demonstrated. The accused had not established such prejudice.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court acknowledged that the testimony of a sexual-assault survivor can independently sustain a conviction. However, it found compelling circumstances that prevented reliance on the complainant’s account without reservation.
The alleged videos of the assault were never recovered. Although the mobile phone was examined, no objectionable material was found. Most of the allegedly stolen property was also not recovered.
The evidence concerning the telephone calls, possession of the mobile phone, weapon used, time of disclosure and steps taken by the complainant and her husband contained substantial inconsistencies.
The complainant’s account of going to Mehandipur Balaji was contradicted by undisputed official bus records. Multiple buses were available during the period in which she claimed to have waited without finding one.
Most significantly, the prosecution’s own Global Positioning System witness established that the taxi was travelling through Noida and Greater Noida when the complainant claimed to have boarded it at Ansal Plaza in Delhi. The witness’s evidence was not challenged through re-examination.
The trial court nevertheless concluded, on its own interpretation of later location entries, that the vehicle could have been in the vicinity of the alleged pickup point. The High Court found this approach erroneous.
If the trial court doubted the location witness or believed that the data supported a different interpretation, it should have questioned him and allowed the defence to respond. It could not disregard his uncontroverted testimony and independently construct a different factual conclusion.
The prosecution had consistently identified Ansal Plaza or its immediate vicinity as the place of abduction. The trial court could not overcome the contrary location evidence by suggesting that the complainant might have been picked up from an unspecified nearby area.
The High Court also held that the trial court wrongly invoked Section 114A of the Evidence Act. The statutory presumption of absence of consent did not apply to the charge under Section 376D in the circumstances of this case.
Taken together, these defects created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s account. The convictions were therefore unsafe.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the prosecution evidence was unsatisfactory and that the trial court’s conclusions were contradicted by material on the record.
In particular, the vehicle’s location records and the testimony of the prosecution’s own witness showed that the taxi was not at Ansal Plaza when the complainant claimed to have boarded it. This evidence, combined with contradictions relating to the available buses, telephone calls, mobile phone, alleged videos, stolen property, weapon and reporting of the incident, created reasonable doubt.
Both criminal appeals were allowed. The convictions and sentences of Gaurav and Praveen Kumar alias Pankaj under Sections 365, 376D, 323, 506 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside.
Both accused were acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered to be set at liberty. Their bail bonds were cancelled, and all pending applications were closed.
Case Details
Case: Gaurav v. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) with Praveen Kumar alias Pankaj v. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: Criminal Appeal 204/2021 with Criminal Appeal 410/2021
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: July 17, 2026
Result: Both appeals allowed; convictions and sentences for abduction, gang rape, assault, criminal intimidation and robbery set aside; both appellants acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty.
