Acquittal in Rape Case Upheld Due to Material Contradictions and Indications of Consensual Relationship

The State of Chhattisgarh appealed against the judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ambikapur, which acquitted the Respondent of charges under Sections 450, 376, and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecutrix (PW-3), a 20-year-old married woman living separately from her husband, alleged that on 29.08.2015, the Respondent forcibly entered her house and raped her under threat of death.

The Trial Court acquitted the Respondent on the grounds that the sexual act appeared consensual.

1. Whether the sexual relationship between the Respondent and the prosecutrix was established without her consent, amounting to rape under Section 376 of the IPC.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s findings of acquittal were perverse or contrary to the evidence on record, warranting interference by the Appellate Court.

The Court applied Section 378(3) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

It relied on the principles from Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2024), which stipulate that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be followed, and an acquittal should only be reversed in cases of manifest illegality or perversity.

Regarding the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, the Court applied Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2020), holding that such testimony must be of "sterling quality," trustworthy, and unblemished to sustain a conviction without corroboration.

The Court observed that while the FSL report (Ex. P-15) confirmed the presence of human spermatozoa on the prosecutrix’s clothing—proving physical relations—it did not establish a lack of consent.

Upon reappreciating the evidence, the Court noted that the prosecutrix admitted the doors were kept open and she offered no physical resistance or outcry despite neighbors living in close proximity.

Furthermore, a long-standing land dispute existed between the parties, suggesting a motive for false implication.

The prosecutrix’s testimony failed the "sterling witness" test as her conduct (lack of resistance) and the surrounding circumstances indicated a consensual relationship rather than a forced encounter.

The court found that the Trial Court had taken a legally plausible view based on the evidence.

Following the doctrine that an appellate court should not interfere with a plausible view of the Trial Court in an acquittal appeal, the Court dismissed the State's appeal. The acquittal of Manoj Kumar Giri was upheld.