The Chhattisgarh High Court’s acquittal of the accused in this rape case underscores a critical doctrinal shift: unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with conduct suggesting consent, can fatally undermine even seemingly corroborative prosecution testimony. This judgment reinforces that in sexual offence cases, the burden of proving non-consent remains on the prosecution and cannot be discharged through vague or inconsistent narratives.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The prosecution alleged that in October 2007, the appellant, a farmer, forcibly raped the prosecutrix in a secluded forest while she was collecting firewood. The prosecution claimed the accused assured her he would marry her to prevent disclosure, but later reneged. The prosecutrix became pregnant and gave birth to a child. An FIR was lodged on 5 October 2009 - nearly two years and two months after the alleged incident. The delay was unexplained in the FIR, with the space for reason left blank.
Procedural History
- October 2007: Alleged incident occurred in Datlagwa forest
- October 2009: FIR lodged at Police Station Bagicha
- 2010: Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment
- 2011: Appeal filed before Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 374(2) CrPC
- 28 January 2026: High Court allowed appeal and acquitted appellant
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, unexplained delay, and evidence suggesting consensual relations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 376(1) IPC can sustain a conviction when the prosecution’s case is marred by an unexplained delay of over two years in lodging the FIR and the prosecutrix’s conduct indicates possible consent, including her failure to disclose the identity of the child’s biological father.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential element of non-consent. The delay in filing the FIR was not only inordinate but also unexplained, violating the principle that delay must be reasonably accounted for in sexual offence cases (State v. Suresh Kumar, State of U.P. v. Krishna). The prosecutrix’s admission that she was married to another man, Raghuveer, and her ignorance of his recorded paternity on the child’s birth certificate suggested a motive to falsely implicate the accused. The medical evidence of an old ruptured hymen further weakened the claim of recent assault.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the prosecutrix’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by her father’s statement. It argued that delay in reporting is common in rural settings due to social stigma and that the birth of the child served as a catalyst for reporting. The State relied on the trial court’s finding that the accused’s assurance of marriage was fraudulent and thus indicative of deceit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and found the prosecution’s case fundamentally flawed. The delay of nearly two years in lodging the FIR was not merely procedural - it went to the root of credibility. The Court noted that the prosecutrix herself admitted she approached the police only when the child was nine months old, indicating the FIR was not prompted by the incident itself but by subsequent circumstances.
"The prosecutrix’s conduct, including her failure to disclose the identity of the child’s father despite being aware of the paternity record, raises serious doubts about the veracity of her claim of non-consent."
The Court emphasized that Section 376(1) IPC requires proof of sexual intercourse without consent, and consent cannot be inferred from silence or inaction alone. However, where the victim’s conduct - such as prolonged cohabitation with the alleged perpetrator, failure to report promptly, and concealment of prior marital status - suggests a consensual relationship, the prosecution must offer a compelling explanation. Here, no such explanation was offered.
The medical evidence of an old ruptured hymen was not conclusive of non-consent, but its presence alongside the unexplained delay and contradictory testimony created reasonable doubt. The Court held that the trial court had misapplied the standard of proof by accepting testimony that was internally inconsistent and unsupported by independent corroboration.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted him of the charge under Section 376(1) IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay, contradictory testimony, and conduct inconsistent with non-consent. The Court directed the appellant to furnish a personal bond under Section 437-A CrPC pending any potential appeal to the Supreme Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in FIR Is Not Merely Procedural
- Practitioners must now treat unexplained delays exceeding one year in sexual offence cases as a red flag requiring independent corroboration
- Prosecution must proactively explain delays with documentary or contextual evidence - not silence or generic claims of stigma
- Courts must not presume that delay is automatically excusable in rural or patriarchal contexts
Consent Cannot Be Presumed, But Conduct Can Create Reasonable Doubt
- Evidence of prior relationships, concealment of paternity, or failure to report immediately may not prove consent, but they can generate reasonable doubt
- The burden remains on the prosecution to disprove consent, but the absence of credible testimony on key facts shifts the balance
- Defence counsel should systematically challenge the timeline and motive behind reporting in all rape cases
Medical Evidence Alone Is Insufficient to Sustain Conviction
- Hymen status, pregnancy, or birth of a child cannot substitute for proof of non-consent
- Courts must avoid relying on outdated medical assumptions about virginity or sexual history
- DNA evidence, if available, must be sought early; failure to test may be fatal to the prosecution’s case
