In a judgment dated 13.04.2026, the Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Pahuja<\/strong> 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case revolved around a relationship that continued for nearly three years<\/strong> before the complaint was filed. The court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Indicating that the dispute arose only after the relationship ended. It further noted that there was \u201cconsiderable unexplained delay in reporting the matter to police,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and therefore \u201cfalse implication of the accused cannot be ruled out,\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While analysing consent, the court found that the relationship was based on mutual affection<\/strong> rather than coercion or deception. It clearly held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Showing that the element of voluntary participation was evident throughout the relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cdid not raise any issue till lodging of the FIR in August 2025\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and that failure to explain such delay was fatal, observing that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLodging an FIR after unreasonable delay without any plausible reasons or grounds is very fatal to the case of the prosecution,\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On the serious allegation of miscarriage, the court found no supporting medical or scientific evidence<\/strong>. It noted that medical records only confirmed pregnancy but did not connect the accused to it<\/strong>, stating that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo medical document reflects the name of the accused as the father of the baby.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This significantly weakened the prosecution\u2019s version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further, the court rejected the claim of forced abortion due to complete lack of corroboration<\/strong>. It observed that if such an act had taken place, it would have been reflected in medical examination, but-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo medical evidence has been adduced on record to establish that miscarriage\u2026 happened due to consumption of any medicine.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n And no doctor was examined to support the allegation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also considered the conduct and maturity of the complainant, noting that she was aware of the consequences of her actions<\/strong>. It held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe prosecutrix\u2026 cannot be assumed to be so naive that she was not aware of the probable consequences.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n And found no evidence of threat, coercion, or blackmail<\/strong>, concluding that she-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAlways willingly entered into friendship and then into physical relationship\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Additionally, the prosecution failed to examine important witnesses<\/strong>, which further weakened the case. In view of these findings, the court concluded that the allegations did not meet the standard of proof<\/strong> required in criminal law and acquitted the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS & PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n