Material contradictions and admitted voluntary relations warranted acquittal on the rape charge.

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹2,000, imposed by the Fast Track Court-II, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 266 of 2010 arising from Pipra P.S. Case No. 160 of 2009

The prosecution case was that the victim worked as a labourer in the appellant’s house and that, approximately six to seven months before filing the complaint, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her by threatening her with a knife and assuring her that he would marry her.

The victim subsequently became pregnant, and a Panchayat was convened, after which the appellant allegedly agreed to marry her but later absconded

The prosecution examined three witnesses.

The victim stated in evidence that the appellant had sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage, that they subsequently underwent a marriage ceremony at Shingheswar Temple, and that they lived together for about six months before he deserted her.

During cross-examination, she admitted that she had established physical relations with the appellant of her own free will

The other witnesses spoke about the victim’s employment, pregnancy, the Panchayat, and the appellant’s subsequent conduct, but neither was an eyewitness to the alleged sexual act

The complaint was instituted approximately six and a half months after the alleged occurrence

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual relationship between the appellant and the victim constituted rape punishable under Section 376 IPC, rather than consensual intercourse?

Whether the delay in lodging the complaint, the material variation between the complaint and the victim’s testimony, and the subsequent marriage and cohabitation created a reasonable doubt entitling the appellant to acquittal?

The Court applied Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, under which the prosecution was required to establish the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

It applied the general criminal-law principle that the burden rests on the prosecution and that any reasonable doubt must enure to the benefit of the accused

The Court further held that delay in lodging a complaint is not by itself fatal, but may assume significance when considered with material inconsistencies in the prosecution case

It also applied the principle that proof of sexual relations or pregnancy, without proof that the relationship was against the victim’s will or without her consent, does not by itself establish rape

The Court found that the prosecution case principally depended upon the victim’s testimony

The complaint alleged forcible intercourse through the use of a knife and threats to kill, whereas the victim’s evidence described sexual relations on the pretext of marriage.

Her admission that she had physical relations with the appellant of her own free will, together with the alleged marriage ceremony and six months of cohabitation, created serious doubt as to whether the relationship was against her will or without her consent

The testimony of the other witnesses established, at most, the existence of sexual relations, the victim’s pregnancy, and the subsequent Panchayat; it did not prove the circumstances in which the relationship commenced or that it amounted to rape

The six-and-a-half-month delay, coupled with the material inconsistency in the prosecution version, further strengthened the reasonable doubt

The judgment of conviction dated 4 January 2018 and order of sentence dated 8 January 2018 were set aside

The appellant was acquitted and discharged from the liability of his bail bonds; the appeal was accordingly allowed