Consensual relationship and lack of corroborative evidence negate allegations of rape and administration of stupefying substances.

The Appellant (victim) challenged the judgment dated 13th August, 2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, which acquitted Respondent No. 2 of charges under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), and 506 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the accused administered a stupefying substance to the prosecutrix, raped her, and subsequently blackmailed her into further sexual acts using recorded videos/photographs.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing a lack of evidence regarding the stupefying substance, the absence of recovered incriminating media, and findings that the prosecutrix was a consenting party who misused the law.

Prior to this appeal, the State’s leave to appeal (CRL.L.P. 634/2018) had already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on 1st October, 2018.

Whether the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 by the Trial Court was sustainable in light of the evidence on record.

Whether the present appeal by the victim can be maintained given that a Coordinate Bench had already dismissed the State's leave to appeal against the same spurred judgment on merits.

The Court applied the principle of judicial discipline and the binding nature of orders passed by Coordinate Benches.

Section 328 (causing hurt by means of poison/stupefying substance), Section 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. regarding bail bonds post-acquittal.

The core legal doctrine applied was that once a Bench of equal strength has adjudicated upon the merits of a judgment of acquittal (even at the stage of "leave to appeal"), that view is binding on subsequent proceedings challenging the same judgment.

The Court observed that the Coordinate Bench in CRL.L.P. 634/2018 had already conducted a detailed merits-based review of the case.

That Bench found that the "fundamental premise" of the prosecution—the existence of coercive photographs—was never established.

The prosecutrix's conduct, specifically her voluntary visits to the guest house and failure to report the matter to her husband or the police for an extended period, strongly indicated consent rather than rape.

The presence of semen in medical samples was insufficient to establish rape given the evidence of a voluntary relationship.

Consequently, the present Bench determined that because a Coordinate Bench had already upheld the acquittal on merits, the victim's appeal could not be "treated differently" and the prior order dated 1st October, 2018, was binding.

The Court affirmed that the earlier dismissal of the State’s leave to appeal on merits concluded the matter for this Bench as well. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.