Madras HC Upholds Acquittal In Rape Case, Citing Continued Sexual Relations And Complaint After Pregnancy

The appellant, Ponnuthai, challenged the acquittal of Saravanan in an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

She alleged that in October 2014 he trespassed into her home and raped her; she became pregnant and complained to the police on 16 February 2015.

The Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 450, 342, 376(P) and 506(i) IPC and acquitted Saravanan after trial.

On appeal, the High Court considered the appellant’s evidence, the evidence of the doctor and other witnesses, and the defence evidence concerning her prior marriage.

The appeal was brought under Section 372 Cr.P.C., and the charges at trial were under Sections 450, 342, 376(P) and 506(i) IPC.

The Court applied the principle governing appeals against acquittal that, where two views of the evidence are possible, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted because acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; an acquittal should not be reversed merely because another view is possible.

The Court considered the appellant’s assertion that she was unmarried alongside defence evidence of her prior marriage, and treated the discrepancy as affecting her credibility.

It also relied on her admissions that she and Saravanan were close, his visits were known to their families, she made no prompt complaint or protest, and she continued sexual relations with him before complaining after becoming pregnant.

The Court considered that PW5’s testimony established Saravanan’s entry into and time inside the house but did not establish force, and found that the evidence as a whole permitted the trial court’s view that the relationship was consensual.

Applying the acquittal standard, it found no basis to disturb that view.

It upheld the acquittal in S.C. No. 145 of 2016 and dismissed the appeal.