Consent Precluding Offence of Rape Where Major Prosecutrix Remained with Accused Without Raising Alarm

The Appellant was convicted by the Session Judge, Jashpur, on 22.05.2007 for offences under Sections 376(1), 447, 366, and 342 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 15.11.2006, the Appellant forcibly took the prosecutrix (PW-1) from her courtyard to his house, threatened her with a knife, and committed sexual intercourse

It was further alleged she was wrongfully confined for three days until rescued by her father (PW-2)

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of consent, citing that the prosecutrix was a major, no alarm was raised despite neighbors being nearby, and the medical report showed no injuries

Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix possesses the "sterling quality" required to sustain a conviction based on solitary evidence

Whether the evidence on record establishes that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the alleged acts

The Court primarily applied the standards of evidence for rape under Section 376 of the IPC and the principles regarding the credibility of a prosecutrix's testimony as laid down in *Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2020) 3 SCC 443

This precedent establishes that while conviction can be based on the solitary version of the prosecutrix, her evidence must be "absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality"; if the version is not believable or lacks supporting evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused

The Court observed significant contradictions in the testimony of PW-1, noting that while she alleged abduction, she admitted the Appellant’s house was only 500 meters away with several houses in between, yet she raised no effective alarm

The Court highlighted that while she denied a love affair during trial, her initial FIR (Ex-P/1) mentioned the Appellant's declaration of love and intent to marry

Furthermore, the father (PW-2) admitted he did not immediately lodge a report even after learning his daughter was at the Appellant’s house

The medical examiner (PW-4) found no internal or external injuries, only an old ruptured hymen

Applying the *Santosh Prasad* test, the Court found that the conduct of the prosecutrix—remaining for three days without protest—and the delay in reporting by the father suggested she was a consenting party

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.05.2007 was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of all charges

The Appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond under Section 481 of the BNSS 2023