The Allahabad High Court set aside a 10-year rape conviction after finding major contradictions in testimony and medical evidence showing no force or non-consent. The judgment exposes how selective reading of evidence can destroy a man’s liberty despite serious doubts in the prosecution case.
Allahabad: In a judgment reaffirming the foundational safeguards of criminal law, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the trial court’s approach was legally flawed, evidence was misread, and vital contradictions and medical material were ignored. The Court made it clear that a conviction affecting personal liberty cannot survive when it is based on assumptions rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the father of the prosecutrix alleging that his daughter had gone missing and was taken away by the accused. After investigation, the trial court convicted the accused for abduction and rape while acquitting him of charges under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act. The High Court re-examined the entire record, including witness testimony, medical evidence, and statements recorded at different stages, and found serious flaws in the prosecution story.
At the outset, the High Court noted that the trial court itself had held the prosecutrix to be a major at the time of the incident, and this finding was never challenged. Once this finding stood, the legal position regarding consent became central. The Court observed that in offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, consent is a foundational requirement and must be assessed from the totality of circumstances.
On the issue of age determination, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Jarnail Singh Vs State of Haryana (2013 AIR SC 3467), which lays down the hierarchy of documents and principles for determining age. Since no reliable documentary proof of age was produced and the trial court had already concluded that the woman was a major, the High Court accepted that she was an adult.
On examining the woman’s own statements, the Court found serious contradictions. In her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that she was in love with the accused and had gone with him willingly. She also stated that her age was wrongly mentioned as 14 in the charge sheet and clarified that she was 18 years old.
The High Court relied heavily on the medical evidence. The doctor who examined the woman found no external injuries, no signs of recent sexual activity, and recorded that the hymen tear was old and healed. The vaginal smear report did not show the presence of spermatozoa. Importantly, the woman’s statement before the doctor did not mention force, abduction, or rape. The Court held that this was the earliest and most reliable version because it was recorded when she was free from any influence.
Another major issue highlighted by the Court was inconsistency in dates. The trial court wrongly assumed a different date of occurrence in order to reject the medical evidence. The High Court termed this approach as perverse and against the basic principles of criminal law.
The High Court strongly criticised the trial court for indirectly shifting the burden onto the accused instead of ensuring that the prosecution first discharged its burden of proof. It reiterated that even in serious offences like rape, conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is permissible only when her evidence is consistent and inspires confidence. In this context, the Court relied on State (GNCT of Delhi) Vs Vipin @ Lalla, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 78, observing:
“Although it is absolutely true that in the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix… the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court.”
The Court further relied on Vijaya Singh & Another Vs State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3510, where the Supreme Court held:
“A statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be discarded on a mere statement of the witness that it was not recorded correctly…”
Applying this principle, the High Court noted that the prosecutrix herself admitted that she did not tell the Magistrate about rape, and therefore it was not recorded. A signed judicial statement could not be brushed aside casually.
The Court also examined the concept of consent in detail and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kaini Rajan Vs State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113, which explains that consent must be voluntary, conscious, and based on informed choice, and that whether consent existed must be judged from all surrounding circumstances.
On the issue of burden of proof, the Court reiterated:
“In rape cases under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code … the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
It further clarified the limited operation of presumptions under Section 114A of the Evidence Act and under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, stating that even statutory presumptions do not replace the requirement of proving foundational facts.
After evaluating the entire evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecutrix was a major, was in a relationship with the accused, and had left her home on her own will. There was no reliable evidence of force, coercion, or rape, and the medical evidence clearly contradicted the prosecution version. The Court held that criminal liability cannot be imposed merely on assumptions or by ignoring evidence favourable to the accused.
This judgment reinforces that criminal courts must rely on evidence, not emotions or assumptions. Adult consensual relationships cannot be converted into criminal cases without clear proof of force or absence of consent. Misuse of serious criminal provisions causes irreversible damage to innocent lives and weakens the credibility of genuine cases. Courts must continue to act as guardians of constitutional liberty and due process.
Explanatory table – laws & sections involved
| Law & Section | Legal Purpose / Meaning | How It Applied in This Case |
| IPC Section 363 | Punishment for kidnapping | Trial court acquitted the accused; High Court upheld acquittal since the prosecutrix was a major and not a minor. |
| IPC Section 366 | Abduction to compel marriage or illicit intercourse | Conviction set aside as evidence showed voluntary departure and no proof of force or inducement. |
| IPC Section 375 | Definition of rape and consent | Court analysed contradictions in statements and emphasized that consent must be voluntary and informed. |
| IPC Section 376 | Punishment for rape | Conviction overturned due to lack of proof of force, coercion, or absence of consent. |
| CrPC Section 164 | Magistrate’s statement of victim/witness | Victim earlier admitted voluntary relationship; later contradicted during trial, affecting credibility. |
| CrPC Section 313 | Examination of accused | Accused denied allegations and pleaded false implication due to rivalry. |
| POCSO Act Sections 3 / 4 | Penetrative sexual assault and punishment | Trial court acquitted since prosecutrix was held to be a major. |
| POCSO Act Sections 29 / 30 | Presumption of guilt and culpable mental state | Presumptions not applicable because foundational facts were not proved. |
| Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 Section 94 | Procedure for age determination | No documentary proof of age; victim treated as major based on trial court finding. |
| SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(v) | Enhanced punishment for caste-based offence | Accused acquitted as no caste-based motive was proved. |
| Indian Evidence Act Section 114A | Presumption regarding absence of consent | Not attracted as prosecution failed to establish foundational facts. |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 481 | Bond requirement after acquittal | Accused directed to execute bond before release. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Bhagwat Kushwaha vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Dates
- Judgment Reserved on: 15 December 2025
- Judgment Delivered on:13 January 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Achal Sachdev
- Counsels :
- For Appellant: Abhishek Mayank, Abhishek Srivastava, Arbaz Danish, Vipin Kumar, Zia Naz Zaidi
- For Respondent / State: G.A., Rajesh Kumar Singh, Vinay Kumar Singh
Key Takeaways
- Courts cannot convict a man merely on allegations when medical evidence and earlier statements clearly contradict the prosecution story. Evidence must prevail over emotions.
- When a woman is legally a major and leaves voluntarily, consent becomes decisive, and criminal law cannot be misused to convert a failed relationship into a rape case.
- Section 164 CrPC statements given before a Magistrate carry serious legal weight and cannot be casually discarded to suit later narratives.
- Trial courts must not shift the burden onto the accused; the prosecution must first prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in every criminal case.
- False or exaggerated cases destroy innocent lives, weaken genuine victims’ credibility, and highlight the urgent need for gender-neutral, evidence-based justice.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.