The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a conviction under Section 376 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the prosecutrix’s prior consensual relationship with the accused and unexplained delay in reporting the incident.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Devadhar Lal @ Deva, was convicted by the 11th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg, under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a married woman on 15.05.2007. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered the prosecutrix’s room at 10:30 PM, gagged her mouth, forced her to the ground, and committed sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix cried for help, her husband arrived, the accused fled, and the incident was reported to police on 17.05.2007. The prosecutrix later consumed poison mixed with honey and butter, leading to hospitalization.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix (PW-1) is a married woman aged approximately 35 years with five children.
- On 27.04.2007, she stayed with the accused at Mayura Hotel, Room No. 208, from 10:00 AM on 27.04.2007 until 10:30 AM on 28.04.2007.
- During cross-examination, she admitted to having a physical relationship with the accused during this stay, describing it as "husband and wife" and not disclosing it to anyone.
- She admitted that she did not report the alleged rape on 15.05.2007 immediately, despite her husband being present.
- The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 17.05.2007 - two days after the incident - following a panchayat meeting convened by family members.
- The prosecution document Ex-P/1 incorrectly lists the date of incident as 15.07.2007, while all other evidence confirms 15.05.2007.
- Medical examination (PW-10, Dr. Ujjwala Dewangan) on 18.05.2007 found no external or internal injuries. The doctor stated no definitive opinion could be rendered on whether sexual intercourse had occurred.
- The prosecutrix’s underwear and petticoat were seized (Ex-P/3), but no forensic report was produced to confirm semen or other biological evidence.
- The husband (PW-2) corroborated the incident but admitted the FIR was lodged only after family consultation and due to the prosecutrix’s shame.
- PW-5 and PW-6, villagers who allegedly heard cries, were declared hostile and denied their prior police statements.
- PW-7, a relative of the prosecutrix, stated the husband came to him on the night of the incident and reported the rape, but admitted he was considered a father-in-law by the prosecutrix.
Procedural History
- 15.05.2007: Alleged incident of rape at 10:30 PM in the prosecutrix’s residence, Village Bundeli, PS Daundilohara, District Durg.
- 17.05.2007: FIR registered at PS Anda, Durg (Ex-P/1).
- 18.05.2007: Medical examination of prosecutrix conducted.
- 20.05.2007: Seizure memo (Ex-P/3) and spot map (Ex-P/4, Ex-P/5) prepared.
- 2007: Charge sheet filed before the Magistrate.
- 07.03.2008: Trial Court convicted appellant under Sections 376 and 450 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years RI and 5 years RI respectively, with default stipulations.
- 29.07.2008: Appeal filed before the High Court (CRA No. 297 of 2008).
- 23.03.2026: Judgment delivered by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: The conviction is unsustainable due to the prosecutrix’s prior consensual relationship with the accused, her delayed and inconsistent testimony, and the absence of medical corroboration. The delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the fact that the report was made only after a family panchayat, raises serious doubts about the veracity of the allegation.
For the Respondent (State): The Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and the prosecutrix’s testimony was consistent with the circumstances. The delay in FIR was due to shame and trauma, which is common in sexual assault cases.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on the grounds that the conviction was based on unreliable evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of rape under Section 376 IPC, particularly the absence of consent.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual, given the prosecutrix’s prior consensual relationship with the accused, her delayed FIR, and the absence of medical or forensic evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the prosecutrix’s admission of a consensual relationship with the accused 18 days prior to the alleged rape fundamentally undermined the prosecution’s case. The fact that she did not disclose this relationship to anyone, and only reported the incident after a family meeting and two days after the event, indicated a possible motive of revenge or coercion. The lack of injuries, absence of semen evidence, and contradictory statements on the date of the incident (Ex-P/1 listing 15.07.2007 instead of 15.05.2007) further eroded credibility. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and State of U.P. v. Krishna to argue that consent, even if previously given, must be assessed in context, and that delay in FIR without explanation is fatal.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the Trial Court had rightly relied on the prosecutrix’s testimony, which was consistent in material aspects. The delay in FIR was explained as due to social stigma and emotional trauma, which courts have routinely accepted. The medical report’s neutrality was not a defect, as absence of injury does not negate rape. The prosecution argued that the prior relationship was irrelevant if the act on 15.05.2007 was non-consensual.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the prosecutrix’s testimony and found it riddled with contradictions and improbabilities. The prosecutrix admitted to staying with the accused at a hotel for over 24 hours, engaging in sexual relations, and not disclosing this to anyone - including her husband - for nearly three weeks. The Court observed that this conduct was inconsistent with the claim of being a victim of a violent sexual assault.
"The prosecutrix, a married woman with five children, admitted to a consensual relationship with the accused, yet failed to explain why she would suddenly become a victim of rape two weeks later, especially when her husband was present and she did not cry out until he entered the room."
The Court noted that the FIR was lodged only after a panchayat meeting, and the date of the incident was incorrectly recorded as 15.07.2007 in the FIR, despite all other evidence pointing to 15.05.2007. The medical report, which found no injuries and could not confirm sexual intercourse, was not challenged or supplemented by forensic evidence.
The Court emphasized that in cases of sexual assault, the credibility of the prosecutrix is paramount, but it cannot be accepted blindly when it is contradicted by her own conduct and statements. The Court distinguished State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh, where prior relationship was held irrelevant if the act was non-consensual, but noted that in this case, the prosecutrix herself admitted to the prior relationship and did not report it - a fact that the Trial Court failed to weigh.
The Court further held that the delay of two days in lodging the FIR, without any plausible explanation, and the fact that the report was made only after family intervention, raised serious doubts about the spontaneity and truthfulness of the allegation.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 450 IPC were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges. The appellant, already on bail, was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 before the Trial Court within seven days, effective for six months, with an undertaking to appear before the Supreme Court if a Special Leave Petition is filed. The Trial Court’s record and a copy of this judgment were directed to be sent back for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Consensual Relationship Can Undermine Prosecution
- Practitioners must rigorously examine whether the prosecutrix had any prior consensual relationship with the accused, even if brief or informal.
- Such relationships, if admitted by the prosecutrix, shift the burden to the prosecution to prove the act in question was non-consensual - not merely by testimony, but by corroborative evidence.
- Absence of injury or forensic evidence becomes more significant when prior intimacy is established.
Delay in FIR Must Be Explained, Not Excused
- A delay of more than 48 hours in lodging an FIR in rape cases requires a credible, spontaneous explanation.
- If the delay is attributable to family intervention, social pressure, or post-event deliberation, courts will treat it as a red flag - not a mitigating factor.
- Inconsistencies in the FIR date (e.g., 15.07.2007 vs. 15.05.2007) are fatal to credibility and must be challenged.
Medical Evidence Is Not Always Required, But Its Absence Matters
- While absence of injury does not disprove rape, the lack of any biological or forensic corroboration - especially when the prosecutrix claims force and resistance - weakens the prosecution’s case significantly.
- Medical reports must be properly interpreted and, if inconclusive, the prosecution must offer alternative evidence to bridge the gap.
