Prolonged sexual relationship without timely complaint implies consent, justifying acquittal absent patent perversity.

The Appellant/Victim filed an appeal against the judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bemetara, which acquitted Respondent No. 2 of charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, and 506 Part II of the IPC

The victim (PW-1) alleged that the accused had repeatedly established physical relations with her against her will for eight years by extending life threats, starting with an incident near a cremation ground and concluding with an incident in March 2024

She reported the matter to her husband on 25.04.2024, and a written report was lodged on 30.04.2024

Medical examination revealed no external or internal injuries

During the trial, the victim’s husband (PW-7) admitted that the victim had received a mobile phone from the accused and that he had informed others about the victim's long-term relationship with the accused

1. Whether the trial court's findings of acquittal were perverse or suffered from patent illegality justifying interference by the appellate court

2. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the physical relations were non-consensual and obtained through criminal intimidation

The court primarily applied Sections 376(2)(n), 294, and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code regarding repeated rape, obscenity, and criminal intimidation

It relied on the principles governing appeals against acquittal established in Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, which holds that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should only be disturbed upon thorough scrutiny of legal parameters

It further applied the criteria from Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2024), stating that if two views are possible, the one in favor of the accused must be followed, and acquittal should only be reversed in cases of manifest illegality or perversity

The High Court observed that the victim (PW-1) failed to provide specific details regarding the dates or months of the alleged incidents over the eight-year period

The court found her long silence and continued contact with the accused—including continuing to work in his fields—inconsistent with the allegation of repeated rape under threat

Crucially, the testimony of the victim’s husband (PW-7) regarding the accused gifting a mobile phone to the victim and the husband's prior knowledge of their relationship suggested a consensual liaison

The court also noted a significant, unsatisfactorily explained delay in lodging the FIR

Applying the Mallappa and Jafarudheen precedents, the court reasoned that the trial court had taken a "plausible and reasonable view" by concluding the victim was likely a consenting party

The court held that since the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, there was no ground to reverse the acquittal

The court held that in the absence of patent illegality or perversity, the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused must prevail

The acquittal of Respondent No. 2 from all charges was upheld