Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal In Married Woman’s Rape Case, Citing Her Earlier Statement That Accused Had No Photos and Their Consensual Relationship

The complainant, a married woman with two children, alleged that after meeting accused Parth Panchal on Facebook, he photographed her and, by threatening to circulate the photographs, forced her to have sexual intercourse at hotels in 2019.

She also alleged that accused Kishan Chauhan later sought sexual favours by blackmailing her.

She lodged an FIR on 7 May 2022.

The Sessions Court acquitted both accused of offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 354D, 506(1) and 114 of the IPC, finding the relationship consensual and the allegation against accused no. 2 unproved.

The complainant appealed against the acquittals under Section 413 of the BNSS.

Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 372 of the CrPC) provides for a victim’s appeal against acquittal.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should respect the reinforced presumption of innocence; interference is warranted in exceptional cases involving compelling circumstances or a perverse judgment, and not merely because another view is possible.

A complainant’s sole testimony may support conviction if reliable and trustworthy, but it must inspire confidence; Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) explains the “sterling witness” standard, including consistency and freedom from material doubt.

Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana likewise holds that materially inconsistent or unreliable testimony may require independent corroboration and cannot, by itself, sustain conviction.

The Court also referred to Prasant v. State of NCT of Delhi and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra in addressing the distinction between a failed consensual relationship and sexual violence involving coercion or absence of consent.

The Court found that the complainant’s account was undermined by her prior statements and conduct. She had earlier stated that she fell in love with accused no. 1 and that he did not possess photographs or videos of her; she also acknowledged that no such material was found on his phone.

The Court considered the delay in reporting the alleged 2019 incidents, the absence of evidence of continuing threats or harassment, and call records which it viewed as consistent with a consensual relationship.

On this record, it held that her testimony did not meet the standard of a wholly reliable or “sterling” witness and did not prove rape or criminal intimidation beyond reasonable doubt.

As to accused no. 2, the Court relied on the dispute between him and the complainant’s husband over parking shortly before the FIR and the absence of incriminating material, and concluded that the allegation of a demand for sexual favours was not established.

It found no perversity in the trial court’s assessment warranting appellate interference.

Both appeals were dismissed at the admission stage.