Can repeated consensual intimacy over years be retrospectively termed as rape without proof of coercion or deception?
The court held that criminal law cannot be invoked where consent was freely and voluntarily given throughout the relationship.
In a judgment dated 13.04.2026, the Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Pahuja at Tis Hazari Court acquitted an accused in a rape case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations and the relationship between the parties was consensual.
The case revolved around a relationship that continued for nearly three years before the complaint was filed. The court observed that:
“It is clear there existed a consensual relation between the prosecutrix and the accused, which perhaps went sour for some reason, which probably triggered the lodging of the present FIR.”
Indicating that the dispute arose only after the relationship ended. It further noted that there was “considerable unexplained delay in reporting the matter to police,” and therefore “false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out,”.
While analysing consent, the court found that the relationship was based on mutual affection rather than coercion or deception. It clearly held that:
“The prosecutrix willingly consented to have sexual intercourse with the accused with whom she was in love, not because he promised to marry her but because she also desired it.”
Showing that the element of voluntary participation was evident throughout the relationship.
The allegations claimed that physical relations took place over a long period from 2022 to 2025, yet the complaint was filed only in August 2025. Highlighting this delay, the court recorded that the prosecutrix “did not raise any issue till lodging of the FIR in August 2025” and that failure to explain such delay was fatal, observing that:
“Lodging an FIR after unreasonable delay without any plausible reasons or grounds is very fatal to the case of the prosecution,”.
On the serious allegation of miscarriage, the court found no supporting medical or scientific evidence. It noted that medical records only confirmed pregnancy but did not connect the accused to it, stating that:
“No medical document reflects the name of the accused as the father of the baby.”
This significantly weakened the prosecution’s version.
Further, the court rejected the claim of forced abortion due to complete lack of corroboration. It observed that if such an act had taken place, it would have been reflected in medical examination, but-
“No medical evidence has been adduced on record to establish that miscarriage… happened due to consumption of any medicine.”
And no doctor was examined to support the allegation.
The court also considered the conduct and maturity of the complainant, noting that she was aware of the consequences of her actions. It held that:
“The prosecutrix… cannot be assumed to be so naive that she was not aware of the probable consequences.”
And found no evidence of threat, coercion, or blackmail, concluding that she-
“Always willingly entered into friendship and then into physical relationship”.
Additionally, the prosecution failed to examine important witnesses, which further weakened the case. In view of these findings, the court concluded that the allegations did not meet the standard of proof required in criminal law and acquitted the accused.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS & PROVISIONS INVOLVED
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishes rape | Court held consent was voluntary; ingredients of rape not proved |
| Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Repeated rape on same woman | Rejected as relationship was continuous and consensual |
| Section 313 IPC | Causing miscarriage without consent | Failed due to absence of medical evidence linking accused |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | No proof of threat or coercion; allegation not established |
| Criminal Law Principles (Burden of Proof) | Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Court found inconsistencies, delay, and lack of corroboration fatal |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: State vs Bilal Ahmed @ Sheelu
- Case No.: SC/596/2025
- Court: Tis Hazari Court
- Judge: ASJ Vishal Pahuja
- Date of Judgment: 13.04.2026
- Defence Counsel: Fahad Khan
- Decision: Contested — Acquitted
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Long-term consensual relationships cannot be turned into criminal allegations simply because the relationship later breaks down.
- Delay in filing complaints without strong justification seriously weakens credibility and raises doubt on intent.
- Allegations like forced miscarriage or coercion require strict medical and independent evidence; mere statements are not sufficient.
- Consent given out of love, affection, and continued voluntary involvement cannot be later reinterpreted as absence of consent.
- Criminal law must protect genuine victims, not become a tool to settle personal scores after relationships fail.
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.
