Prior consensual relationship and discovery by husband negate rape allegations, justifying acquittal of the accused.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 07.03.2008 passed by the 11th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg, which convicted him under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 15.05.2007, the appellant trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1), gagged her, and committed rape

The prosecutrix’s husband (PW-2) allegedly witnessed the act, after which the appellant fled

Following the incident, the prosecutrix consumed a mixture of poison, honey, and butter, leading to her hospitalization

The FIR was lodged on 17.05.2007, approximately two days after the incident

During the trial, the prosecutrix admitted to having a prior consensual relationship with the appellant, including a stay at a hotel shortly before the alleged incident

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC is sustainable in light of the evidence suggesting a consensual relationship and the delay in lodging the FIR

The court primarily applied Sections 376 (Punishment for rape) and 450 (House-trespass to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

It relied on the evidentiary principle regarding the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony, particularly focusing on the element of "consent" and "conduct"

The court applied Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the requirement for the accused to furnish bail bonds pending potential further appeals

The Court observed that the testimony and conduct of the prosecutrix (PW-1) were unreliable

PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that she had previously stayed with the appellant in a hotel room on 27.04.2007 and engaged in sexual relations as "husband and wife" without lodging any complaint

Medical evidence provided by PW-10 further weakened the prosecution's case, as no internal or external injuries were found on the prosecutrix, and no definite opinion on recent sexual intercourse could be formed

The Court noted a two-day delay in filing the FIR, which was only done after a social meeting (panchayat) and discussions with family members

The Court concluded that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the criminal charges were likely initiated because her husband discovered the parties in a compromising position

the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC were set aside

The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023