Can a victim's conduct during and after an alleged sexual offence be used to infer consent?

Yes, according to this judgment, a victim’s conduct-including travelling willingly with the accused, staying in multiple houses, not seeking help despite opportunities, and failing to raise alarm-can indicate consent, especially if the victim is not a young child and the prosecution fails to prove coercion beyond reasonable doubt.

Is an ossification test alone sufficient to prove a victim was below 18 years of age?

No. The Court held that ossification tests are inherently imprecise and must be supplemented with documentary evidence such as school or birth certificates. A margin of error of two years must be allowed, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused if age cannot be conclusively established.

Does the absence of physical injuries negate a rape charge?

No, the absence of injuries does not negate rape. However, in this case, the Court found that the lack of injuries, combined with the victim’s conduct and the absence of proof of coercion, created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s claim of forced intercourse.

Can a victim’s delayed disclosure of the incident affect the credibility of her testimony?

Yes. While delayed disclosure alone does not invalidate testimony, when combined with inconsistent statements, failure to verify claims, and lack of immediate outcry, it can create reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution narrative, as held in this judgment.

rape case acquittal Allahabad HC victim conduct

The Allahabad High Court has set aside convictions under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores that a victim’s conduct during and after the alleged incident, coupled with unreliable age evidence, can fatally undermine a sexual offence case even when the allegations are serious.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Noor Mohammad, was convicted by the Special Judge (Anti Dacoity), Etah, for the abduction, transportation, and rape of a girl aged approximately 17 years. The prosecution alleged that on 26.02.1982, the appellant and another accused, Shaqil Mohammad, lured the victim away from her home under the false pretext that her father was seriously ill and admitted in Aligarh Hospital. The victim was allegedly taken to Aligarh, kept overnight, raped, and then transported back to Amanpur bus stand where she was recovered by her father, Ved Ram.

Key Facts

The victim, identified as Shanta Kumari, was reportedly 17 years old at the time of the incident based on an ossification test conducted on 05.03.1982 by P.W.-4 Dr. Daya Shankar.
The victim’s father, P.W.-2 Ved Ram, lodged an FIR (Ex.Ka-4) on 26.02.1982 at 2:10 PM at Police Station Marehra.
The victim was recovered from the accused at Amanpur bus stand on 28.02.1982.
Medical examination on 04.03.1982 revealed no internal injuries and noted the victim was "accustomed to sexual intercourse."
The victim’s statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after approximately 7-8 days of recovery.
The victim admitted in cross-examination that she had seen the accused previously at a marriage at the house of Allah Noor, her relative.
She admitted she did not inform her siblings, did not attempt to escape during travel, did not raise alarm in public places, and did not seek help even when in the presence of Shaqil’s mother.
P.W.-3 Pitam Singh turned hostile; P.W.-7 Ganga Singh could not conclusively identify the appellant.
The recovery memo prepared by the Investigating Officer stated the victim was found at her home, contradicting the father’s testimony that she was found at the bus stand.
The appellant was not traceable for decades; the case was revived in 2021, and an Amicus Curiae was appointed in 2025.

Procedural History

26.02.1982: FIR registered at Police Station Marehra, Crime No. 59 of 1982.
28.02.1982: Victim recovered at Amanpur bus stand.
04.03.1982: Medical examination conducted at District Hospital, Etah.
05.03.1982: Ossification test conducted to determine age.
27.11.1982: Co-accused Shaqil Mohammad convicted in Sessions Trial No. 243/1982.
23.03.1985: Trial Court convicted Noor Mohammad under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 3, 4, and 4 years RI.
25.03.1985: Appellant released on bail by this Court.
2021: Case listed; appellant could not be traced.
14.03.2022: Bailable warrant issued.
16.05.2022: Non-bailable warrant issued.
17.09.2025: Court appointed Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra as Amicus Curiae.
30.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant (via Amicus Curiae)

The victim was not a stranger to the accused; she had seen them at a family marriage.
Her conduct - travelling willingly, staying in multiple houses, not seeking help, not raising alarm - indicates consent.
The recovery story is contradictory: father claims recovery at bus stand, but police memo records recovery at home.
The victim’s inconsistent statements and failure to verify her father’s alleged illness undermine credibility.
The ossification test is inherently unreliable and cannot conclusively establish minor status.

For the Respondent (State)

The victim was misled by false information about her father’s illness.
Her silence and lack of resistance during travel do not imply consent, especially given her age and psychological state.
The medical report does not disprove rape; absence of injuries is common in such cases.
The victim’s testimony is consistent and trustworthy; minor contradictions do not invalidate the core case.
The conviction was based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal on all charges under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Amicus Curiae also sought release of the appellant, who had been out on bail since 1985 but remained legally unacquitted.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was taken without her consent and that she was a minor at the time of the incident, such that her consent, if any, was legally irrelevant.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The Amicus Curiae relied on the victim’s own admissions: she knew the accused from prior encounters, travelled willingly across multiple towns, stayed in houses with third parties, and never sought help despite ample opportunity. She did not verify the claim about her father’s illness, did not inform her siblings, and did not raise alarm in public. The prosecution’s recovery story was internally contradictory. The ossification test, which estimated her age at 17, was not corroborated by any documentary evidence. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir held that a margin of two years must be allowed in such tests. Thus, the victim could have been a major, making her consent legally relevant.

For the Respondent/State

The State argued that the victim’s conduct was not unnatural given the psychological manipulation by the accused. The false pretext of her father’s illness, combined with her youth, rendered her vulnerable. The absence of injuries does not negate rape. The Supreme Court in State v. Ramesh held that a victim’s silence or delayed outcry does not imply consent. The recovery discrepancy was minor and did not affect the core narrative. The Trial Court’s findings were based on a holistic appreciation of evidence and deserved deference.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the victim’s conduct and the reliability of age evidence. It observed that the victim, even if 17, was not a child but a young woman capable of understanding consequences. Her decision to accompany strangers on a false pretext, without verifying the claim, was inconsistent with normal human behavior. The Court noted:

"A girl of her age is expected to have sufficient understanding and maturity. Blindly relying upon such information without any verification creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story."

The Court further found the conduct of the two witnesses who allegedly saw the victim with the accused to be passive and unhelpful, raising questions about their credibility. The victim’s prolonged stay in multiple houses, including one where Shaqil’s mother was present and scolded the accused, showed no indication of confinement or fear. The fact that she did not seek help from any of these persons, despite weeping, was deemed inconsistent with a victim under coercion.

The Court emphasized:

"She travelled with the accused from one place to another, including by bus and through public places, yet there is nothing on record to show that her movement attracted any suspicion or that she attempted to draw attention."

The recovery discrepancy was critical. The father claimed recovery at the bus stand, yet the Investigating Officer recorded recovery at the victim’s home. The Court held this contradiction was not trivial but indicative of a fabricated narrative. The State’s explanation - that the father feared reporting the recovery - was deemed implausible.

On age determination, the Court applied the principle from Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and held that the ossification test, without corroboration from school records or birth certificates, could not conclusively establish the victim was below 18. With a permissible margin of error of two years, the victim’s age could have ranged from 15 to 19. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The Court concluded:

"Once such possibility exists, the question of consent becomes relevant. As already discussed, the conduct of the victim and surrounding circumstances indicate that she had accompanied the accused persons of her own free will. Therefore, this Court holds that the victim could be treated as a consenting party."

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction could not stand.

The Verdict

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 23.03.1985 by the Special Judge (Anti Dacoity), Etah, in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 1983 are set aside. The appellant, Noor Mohammad, is acquitted of all charges under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The copy of this judgment and the trial court record shall be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court. Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, Amicus Curiae, shall be paid fees as admissible under court rules.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Practitioners must now rigorously examine the victim’s conduct before, during, and after the alleged incident to assess whether consent was truly absent.
Silence, lack of resistance, or delayed outcry cannot automatically be treated as signs of coercion - context and credibility are paramount.
In cases involving older adolescents, courts must assess whether the victim had sufficient maturity to make informed choices.

Ossification Tests Are Not Conclusive for Age Determination

Prosecutions must now produce documentary evidence (school records, birth certificates) to establish minor status in sexual offence cases.
Relying solely on ossification tests without a margin of error will be insufficient; courts must apply the Jaya Mala principle of ±2 years.
Defence counsel should routinely challenge age evidence unless corroborated by official documents.

Recovery Evidence Must Be Consistent and Credible

Contradictions between witness testimony and official recovery memos will be treated as material defects.
The burden remains on the prosecution to establish a consistent narrative; inconsistencies will be interpreted in favor of the accused.
Recovery at the scene of crime versus recovery at home must be clearly documented and explained.

Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC | Victim's Conduct and Ossification Test Insufficiency Lead to Acquittal in Rape Case : Allahabad HC