Gujarat High Court: In an appeal against an order dated 15-4-2013 whereby the Sessions Court acquitted the accused charged under Sections 452, 376 and 506(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J*, held that the victim’s silence regarding the alleged rape till the pregnancy reached an advanced stage proved that it was a clear case of consent and not rape. Thus, the Court stated that the impugned judgment warranted no interference and accordingly upheld the acquittal of accused.
Background
The victim had alleged that the accused repeatedly trespassed into her home when she was alone and committed rape on her. He had also allegedly threatened her with dire consequences if she ever disclosed the incident to anyone. Subsequently, the victim had gotten pregnant but had hidden that information from her family till her 7th or 8th month of pregnancy.
After she had informed her parents, she lodged a police report, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Thereafter, considering the material-on-record, the trial court acquitted the accused of all charges.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that there was absolutely no medical evidence on record to prove that any forcible sexual intercourse was performed on her by the accused against her consent. The repeated incidents were spread over a long period of time, and it was highly unlikely that in all that time she did not disclose the incidents to her family.
The Court also noted that the accused, during the trial court proceedings, had averred that he and the victim had been in love with each other and the sexual intercourse between them was sexual. He had also produced photographs of the two of them together in support of his claim.
The Court considered all facts and circumstances of the case and held that no offence under Sections 376, 452 or 506(2) of the IPC were made out. The conduct of the victim in remaining silent till her pregnancy had reached an advanced stage was clear proof of consent. The Court further opined that the doctor who had examined the victim had testified before the trial court that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. The Court therefore held that the victim was clearly engaged in acts of promiscuity, and it was not a case of rape.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
[State of Gujarat v. Anilbhai Babubhai Dudhat, R/Cr. A No. 1038 of 2013, decided on 30-6-2025]
Order by- Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Krina Calla (APP)
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
