Jharkhand High Court acquits rape convict, finding a consensual relationship based on the victim’s and her husband’s testimony

The appellant was convicted under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the former offence and six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the latter, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The prosecution alleged that he repeatedly sexually assaulted Victim ‘X’ and threatened to defame her if she disclosed the incidents; her husband said he caught the appellant and Victim ‘X’ together.

In cross-examination, Victim ‘X’ admitted to sexual intimacy with the appellant, while her husband said he had caught them having a sexual relationship and had caused the case to be instituted.

The medical examination recorded that intercourse had occurred but found no recent signs of injury.

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence.

Whether the prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual relationship was non-consensual and constituted an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

Whether the conviction under Section 506 IPC could be sustained on the evidence on record.

The court considered the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC.

Its decision turned on whether the evidence established the alleged repeated rape; the court concluded that the evidence instead showed a consensual sexual relationship and that rape was not made out.

No precedent was cited, and the judgment did not separately set out a legal test or detailed analysis for the Section 506 charge.

The court relied principally on the cross-examination of Victim ‘X’ and her husband. It considered their evidence to show that they had a continuing sexual relationship, that the husband caught them together, and that the case was instituted after that discovery.

The court also noted that Victim ‘X’ had not raised an alarm and that the medical examination found no recent signs of injury, while recording that intercourse had occurred.

On this assessment, it found that the prosecution had not established rape and held that the trial court had not properly considered the cross-examination evidence.

The judgment did not separately explain its conclusion as to the threat allegation under Section 506 IPC.

As the appellant was on bail, it discharged him from the liability of his bail bond; any pending applications were closed.