Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed challenging the judgment dated 23-12-2022 and order on sentence dated 28-01-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) RC-01, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), whereby the appellant (‘accused’) was convicted under Sections 376(2)(n)1/5062 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Amit Mahajan, J., stated that the DNA report merely proves paternity and it did not and could not, by itself, established the absence of consent. Mere proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, was insufficient to prove rape unless it was also shown that the act was non-consensual. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence. The Court acquitted accused of all the charges and stated that he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Background
The complainant filed a complaint, alleging that the accused, residing in the same locality as the complainant, had subjected her to repeated acts of sexual assault. She alleged that the accused used to call her to his house under the pretext of playing the board game Ludo. During these visits, he allegedly engaged in non-consensual sexual acts with her.
The complainant stated that whenever she protested or resisted his advances, the accused would scold her and manipulate her into silence by telling her not to disclose the matter to anyone, warning her that she would face social stigma and humiliation if the incidents came to light. The complainant further alleged that approximately six months prior to the registration of the FIR, the accused once again invited her over to play Ludo and forcibly raped her. She alleged that such incidents of sexual assault occurred on multiple occasions and about four to five times in total.
The complainant further narrated that she began experiencing continuous stomach pain a few months later, following which she informed her sister-in-law. Her sister-in-law took her to a doctor, and upon medical examination, it was revealed that she was pregnant. It was only then that she disclosed the acts of sexual assault and proceeded to file a complaint.
The Trial Court convicted the accused of the alleged offences by the impugned judgment, taking into consideration the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, especially the complainant and her family members.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused had filed the present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the several aspects of the case were either hastily brushed aside or dealt with in sweeping generalizations. The reasoning was general, not granular and broad, but not precise. The Court stated that it failed to answer the critical question that lied at the heart of every criminal trial, that did the prosecution’s evidence proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court noted that the central issue in the present case, was the delay in registration of FIR. The complainant alleged repeated acts of sexual assault over a period of six months, culminating in or around October or November 2017. Yet, the FIR was lodged only on 30-01-2018, which was approximately two to three months later, and only after a medical examination revealed her pregnancy. There was no explanation offered for why she did not approach the authorities earlier, despite being an adult, educated, and living in the company of her family.
The Court stated that in the present case, the prosecution had failed to offer any reasonable explanation for the delay. Nor was there any medical evidence to indicate force or resistance. Instead, what we had was a complainant who, by her own admission, continued to visit the accused’s home to play Ludo over an extended period, who developed feelings of affection toward him, and who made no disclosure to her family, even after the alleged incidents had occurred.
The Court observed that the prosecution had placed reliance on the DNA report, which established that the child born to the complainant was biologically fathered by the accused. The Court stated that the DNA report merely proves paternity, and it did not and could not, by itself, established the absence of consent. Mere proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, was insufficient to prove rape unless it was also shown that the act was non-consensual.
The Court stated that the law did not presume consent merely from silence. However, it also did not convict in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. And in this case, the doubt persisted, not due to conjecture, but due to the evidence itself. The testimony was inconsistent, the medical and forensic evidence was absent to establish the offence of rape. Further, the conduct of the complainant was incompatible with the narrative of coercion, and the delay was wholly unexplained.
The Court stated that the complainant was a major at the time of the incident. She was matriculate, literate in Hindi, and mentally sound by her own testimony. Despite having multiple opportunities to report the alleged acts, she remained silent. Her complaint came only after the pregnancy was discovered. Viewed cumulatively, these facts lend credence to the possibility that the FIR was a reaction to social pressure and that the nature of the relationship was re-cast retrospectively to explain an unwanted pregnancy.
The Court stated that in the absence of convincing explanation for the delay and in light of the complainant’s conduct, the possibility of a consensual relationship later being reframed under societal pressure could not be ruled out. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The Court stated that the solemn duty of a criminal court was not to convict merely because an allegation was made, but to convict only when the allegation was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It was a settled principle that when two views were possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The Court stated that this principle was not a technical rule, it was rooted in the foundational notion that no person should be deprived of liberty except through proof that satisfies the judicial conscience.
Thus, the Court stated that the conviction rendered by the Trial Court was unsustainable. The evidence led by the prosecution does not meet the standard of proof required in a case of this nature. The benefit of doubt must, and did, go to the accused. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence. The Court acquitted accused of all the charges and stated that he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
[Nathu v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2038, decided on 20-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Sunita Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Ramanoj, PS Nangloi, Delhi; Astha, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Megha Singh, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
