On June 16, 2025, this court in Lucknow issued a landmark decision, sentencing a woman to seven and a half years in prison for filing a false gang rape and SC/ST atrocity claim. The ruling, made by Special Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi of the SC/ST court, has sparked debates about the misuse of protective laws and the necessity for safeguards against unfounded accusations.
Facts:
On that date, the Special SC/ST Court in Lucknow rendered a unique and important verdict: a 24-year-old woman named Rekha Devi was sentenced to seven and a half years of imprisonment for claiming that two men had gang-raped her and for incorrectly invoking the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This case is notable not only for its outcome but also for the broader questions it raises about finding a middle ground between protecting vulnerable groups and preventing the misuse of legal provisions.
The incident began on June 29, 2021, when Rekha Devi from Barabanki district filed an FIR at the Zaidpur police station. She accused Rajesh Kumar and Bhupendra Kumar Vishwakarma of gang rape and threatening her life and also claimed caste-based harassment under the SC/ST Act. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Bakshi Ka Talab (BKT) police station in Lucknow for jurisdictional reasons and was re-registered as FIR No. 157/2022.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
During the inquiry, notable inconsistencies emerged in Rekha Devi’s accounts. Forensic data, site evaluations, and witness statements contradicted her allegations. The final police report, presented by Circle Officer Naveena Shukla, concluded that the charges were fabricated. It was particularly revealed that Rekha Devi had previously maintained a consensual relationship with one of the accused and allegedly filed the complaint out of resentment after the relationship ended.
Judgement:
Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi found Rekha Devi guilty under Sections 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code for misleading others to commit a serious crime and for providing false information to public authorities. She received consecutive sentences: seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹2 lakh fine under Section 211, along with six months and a ₹1,000 fine under Section 182. If she is unable to pay the fines, she will serve additional time in prison.
Half of the total fine (₹1,00,500) was ordered by the court to be given as compensation to the two men who were wrongfully accused. Rajesh Kumar, who spent three months in jail, and the legal heir of Bhupendra Kumar, who died while the case was ongoing, are to each receive ₹50,250. The court also instructed the government to reclaim any compensation already disbursed to Rekha Devi under the SC/ST Act, making a strong point that such compensation should only be granted post-charge sheet filing, rather than merely upon the filing of an FIR.
In a thorough 42-page ruling, the judge highlighted the severe psychological and social effects on the wrongly accused, stating that stigma could lead to anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal, and in the most severe cases, affect employment opportunities.
Future Implications:
This ruling would have critical implications for how false cases are dealt with in India. The court demanded closer examination of FIRs lodged under sensitive sections such as 376/376D IPC (gang rape/rape) and the SC/ST Act. It suggested police insert the complainant’s pattern of similar complaints in all subsequent FIRs and proposed employing AI tools to monitor repetitive or suspicious complaints.
Moreover, the court’s instruction for payments of compensation to be delayed after police verification seeks to avoid the misuse of public funds in forged cases. This ruling sends a powerful message regarding the seriousness of false charges and can lead to more substantive investigations before charging and also reminds authorities to safeguard the rights of actual victims.
In short, this Lucknow court ruling will likely have an impact on practice as well as policy, promoting a more equitable approach to justice that safeguards both the vulnerable and the wrongly accused.
