#Section 376 IPC

The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a POCSO accused after the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority through statutory records or an ossification test, reiterating that school registers and similar documents are primary proof of age. The court further clarified that while DNA evidence may confirm sexual intercourse, it cannot substitute for proof of lack of consent to establish rape.

The Supreme Court set aside consecutive life sentences for murder and rape imposed in a single trial, holding they must run concurrently under the Muthuramalingam Constitution Bench ruling. The court clarified that Section 31 CrPC does not permit consecutive life terms for offences arising from the same incident, and granted the appellant set-off from his 2010 arrest.

The Gujarat High Court upheld a Section 376 acquittal, holding that written live-in consent deeds raise a presumption of implied consent to sexual relations, and a marriage promise by a minor is legally unenforceable. The ruling establishes that documented cohabitation agreements can defeat 'false promise of marriage' rape charges when the accused was below marriageable age.

The Jharkhand High Court held that, for an IPC 376 rape charge based on a false promise to marry, the prosecution must prove the accused's mala fide intention at the time of the promise and a direct nexus to the sexual act. Without such proof, the conviction cannot be sustained. This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard in false-promise rape cases and affects prosecutors, defence counsel and victims alike.

The Supreme Court overturned the ten-year rigourous imprisonment, restoring the trial court’s acquittal because the medical and forensic reports failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This underscores that rape prosecutions must be backed by conclusive forensic proof, affecting all pending Section 376 IPC cases.

The Allahabad High Court upheld a conviction for kidnapping and rape, ruling that a minor's consent is legally irrelevant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, that the prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony suffices for conviction, and that an appellate court cannot remedy the trial court's omission to impose a mandatory fine.

Allahabad HC affirmed conviction under Section 376 IPC after a 39-year delay but reduced the sentence from 7 to 4 years, citing the appellant's advanced age, infirmities, and the prolonged trial. The ruling underscores the judiciary's balancing act between justice delayed and justice denied.

Allahabad High Court rules that convicting an accused under both POCSO Act Section 6 and IPC Section 376(2)(i) for the same act of rape on a minor constitutes double punishment, violating legal principles. The court reduced the sentence to 14 years while affirming conviction under POCSO, setting a precedent for sentencing in similar cases.

The Kerala High Court granted bail to an accused charged with aggravated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, holding that a four-year consensual relationship followed by an engagement, coupled with an investigation nearly concluded and no criminal antecedents, negates the necessity for continued judicial custody. This ruling reinforces that the gravity of the offence alone cannot override constitutional protections when factual context and procedural progress favor liberty.

Patna High Court sets aside rape conviction, ruling that mere presence or association without evidence of an overt act or shared intention cannot sustain liability under Sections 376/34 IPC. The judgment reinforces that vicarious criminal liability demands proof of active participation or pre-arranged plan, not just proximity to the crime.

Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench ruled that once a complainant retracts allegations, courts must factor this in anticipatory bail proceedings, emphasizing natural justice and procedural safeguards. The judgment underscores that retracted statements cannot be ignored, even if the prosecution opposes bail on grounds of prior withdrawal or procedural history.

The Allahabad High Court has held that a broken promise to marry, without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the time of consent, cannot retroactively transform consensual sexual relations into rape under Section 376 IPC. This ruling protects individuals from weaponizing criminal law in broken romantic relationships and reinforces that consent must be evaluated at the time of the act, not redefined by later disappointment.

Karnataka High Court rules that even a decade-long consensual relationship does not preclude investigation into rape charges if coercion or cheating is alleged. The court emphasized that consent must be free and voluntary, and claims of duress warrant judicial scrutiny under Section 376 IPC and BNSS procedures.

Karnataka High Court ruled that IPC charges under Section 376(2)(n) fail when DNA evidence excludes the accused as the biological father, even if POCSO allegations remain for trial. This sets a precedent for bail jurisprudence where biological proof is pivotal to IPC sexual offence charges.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a child witness's credible and consistent testimony can independently sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC, even without corroborative evidence. The judgment also clarifies that delayed FIR filing in sexual offenses is not fatal if reasonably explained, reinforcing victim-centric evidentiary standards in rape trials.