{"id":920,"date":"2025-10-25T14:10:57","date_gmt":"2025-10-25T08:40:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=920"},"modified":"2025-10-25T14:10:59","modified_gmt":"2025-10-25T08:40:59","slug":"man-judged-not-guilty-in-rape-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/man-judged-not-guilty-in-rape-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court Acquits Man: Mere Alleging \u2018Physical Relations\u2019 Not Sufficient To Establish Rape"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, ruling that merely saying \u201cphysical relations\u201d isn\u2019t enough to prove rape without specific evidence or description.<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

NEW DELHI<\/em>: In a crucial judgment that may shape future sexual offence trials, the Delhi High Court<\/strong> has held that the mere use of the phrase \u201cphysical relations\u201d<\/em> is not enough to prove rape or penetrative sexual assault under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)<\/strong> or Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court, led by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri<\/strong>, acquitted a man who had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment<\/strong> by a trial court. The case, titled Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma vs State (NCT of Delhi)<\/em>, stemmed from an FIR filed at Alipur Police Station, Delhi (FIR No. 255\/2016)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment, reserved on July 24, 2025<\/strong>, and pronounced on October 17, 2025<\/strong>, addressed whether simply stating that \u201cphysical relations\u201d occurred automatically meant that rape had taken place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Ohri observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhether use of the expression \u2018physical relations\u2019 would automatically mean rape or penetrative sexual assault, or whether there has to be some further description or other evidence to establish the connection between the term \u2018physical relations\u2019 and the offence?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The complainant, a 16-year-old minor<\/strong>, alleged that her cousin Rahul used to visit her house often. Their friendship turned into a relationship, and he promised to marry her. She said that on this promise, he \u201cestablished physical relations\u201d with her for about one and a half years before refusing to marry her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heartbroken, she consumed poison on November 12, 2014<\/strong>, and was hospitalised for almost two months. The FIR was registered in March 2016<\/strong>, almost one and a half years later<\/strong>, after she regained her ability to speak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court<\/strong> convicted Rahul under Section 376 IPC<\/strong> and Section 6 of the POCSO Act<\/strong>, sentencing him to 10 years in jail and a \u20b9500 fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguments in the Appeal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Rahul\u2019s counsel \u2014 Mr. Vinayak Bhandari<\/strong>, assisted by Ms. Teestu Mishra<\/strong> and Ms. Jaisal Singh<\/strong> \u2014 argued that the delay in filing the FIR<\/strong> and lack of clarity in the testimony<\/strong> made the conviction unsustainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAt no point does the victim specify what was meant by the phrase \u2018physical relations.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

They also pointed out that there was no medical or forensic proof<\/strong>, and that no penetrative sexual act<\/strong> was ever described by the complainant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prosecution, led by Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State<\/strong>, and Ms. Tanya Agarwal, counsel for the victim<\/strong>, maintained that the girl was a minor and that the accused had committed rape on the false promise of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court\u2019s Findings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Justice Ohri said the Court\u2019s duty is to ensure that a child witness\u2019s statement contains all essential facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIf it appears that the testimony of the child witness is lacking in essential details, it is the statutory duty of the court to ask certain questions to obtain proper proof of the relevant facts,\u201d the Court noted.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He further stated that no effort was made to clarify what the complainant meant by \u201cphysical relations\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe testimony of the child victim or her parents would show that it has been repeatedly stated that \u2018physical relations\u2019 were established; however, there is no clarity as to what was meant by the expression \u2018physical relations\u2019. No further description of the alleged act has been given.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court also noted that the medical examination was delayed by over one and a half years<\/strong>, and no internal examination or forensic evidence<\/strong> was available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThere is no forensic material on record,\u201d Justice Ohri said.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Definition and Legal Context<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Court explained that the term \u201cphysical relations<\/strong>\u201d is not defined under either the IPC or the POCSO Act.
It quoted the definition of penetrative sexual assault<\/em> under Section 3 of the POCSO Act and Section 375 of the IPC, both of which require proof of penetration<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing Virender vs State (2009)<\/strong>, Justice Ohri noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cCommission of an offence under section 376 certainly requires some evidence with regard to the acts which were committed by an accused person to establish the ingredients of the offence.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He observed that vague terms like \u201cgalat kaam\u201d<\/em> or \u201cgandi harkatein\u201d<\/em> in testimonies cannot by themselves prove sexual assault, since these could refer to anything ranging from minor touching to intimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court relied on a Division Bench ruling in Sahjan Ali v. State (2024 SCC OnLine Del 9079)<\/strong>, which clarified that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe phrase \u2018physical relations\u2019 cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse let alone sexual assault.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, the Sikkim High Court<\/strong> in Dipesh Tamang v. State of Sikkim (2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 24)<\/em> had ruled:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c\u2018Physical relationship\u2019, by way of surmises and conjectures, cannot be construed to mean penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of Section 3 of the POCSO Act.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Judicial Duty in Child Testimonies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Justice Ohri also emphasized that courts must play an active role in clarifying vague testimony, particularly when dealing with child witnesses. Referring to Section 165 of the Evidence Act, he said judges are empowered to ask questions to \u201cobtain proper proof of relevant facts.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

He added that courts should ensure vulnerable witnesses feel safe and are not confused by complicated questioning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\u2018Physical
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cThe court should allow the questions to be put in simple language avoiding slang, jargon, or metaphors… Where the witness seems confused, instead of repetition of the same question, the court should direct its rephrasing\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

-He observed while referencing Delhi High Court\u2019s 2024 Guidelines for Recording Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Final Judgment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Finding major inconsistencies, lack of medical proof, and an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, the Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIndeed, this is an unfortunate case. However, the court is bound to decide the case on its own merits and the evidence that has surfaced on record as well as the precedent of the Division Bench of this Court.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

He concluded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the use of the term \u2018physical relations\u2019, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Thus, the High Court set aside the trial court\u2019s conviction<\/strong>, stating it was \u201cunsustainable<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAccordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside,\u201d Justice Ohri ordered.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court directed that the accused be released immediately<\/strong> if not required in any other case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table \u2014 Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td>Description (Simplified)<\/strong><\/td>Application in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 376 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Punishment for the offence of rape. Requires proof of penetration, even partial, against the woman\u2019s will or under prohibited circumstances.<\/td>The trial court convicted Rahul under this section, but the High Court held there was no proof of penetrative sexual act, hence acquittal.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012<\/strong><\/td>Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault<\/em> \u2014 applies when the assault occurs repeatedly or under special circumstances involving a child (below 18 years).<\/td>The High Court ruled that the term \u201cphysical relations\u201d was too vague and did not prove penetrative sexual assault, so Section 6 could not apply.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 3 POCSO Act<\/strong><\/td>Defines Penetrative Sexual Assault<\/em> \u2014 inserting the penis or any object\/body part into the vagina, anus, urethra, or causing the child to do so.<\/td>The Court noted that no description or evidence of such act was provided; hence this foundational fact was not proved.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 5 (l) POCSO Act<\/strong><\/td>Defines Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault<\/em> \u2014 when done repeatedly with a child.<\/td>Not proved \u2014 as the statement only used \u201cphysical relations\u201d without clarifying nature or repetition.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 29 POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Presumption of guilt \u2014 the Court shall presume the accused committed the offence unless proven otherwise, but only after foundational facts are established<\/em>.<\/td>Court held foundational facts missing, so presumption under Section 29 did not apply.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 164 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Statement of the victim recorded before a magistrate.<\/td>The victim stated: \u201cRahul mere saath ek-dedh saal se shareerik sambandh bana raha tha\u2026\u201d, but the Court found this statement vague and lacking legal detail.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 313 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Accused\u2019s examination to explain incriminating evidence.<\/td>Rahul denied all allegations and claimed false implication due to a financial dispute.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 165 Indian Evidence Act<\/strong><\/td>Gives power to judges to ask any question to discover the truth.<\/td>Court observed that the trial judge should have clarified what \u201cphysical relations\u201d meant.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 428 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Allows set-off for pre-trial detention against sentence.<\/td>Granted earlier at trial stage; became redundant after acquittal.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 375 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Defines \u201crape\u201d in legal terms, detailing acts and conditions amounting to rape.<\/td>High Court compared it with the victim\u2019s vague term \u201cphysical relations\u201d and concluded rape not established.<\/td><\/tr>
Delhi High Court Vulnerable Witness Guidelines, 2024 (Rule 23)<\/strong><\/td>Provides rules for questioning minors in sensitive cases \u2014 must be simple, non-intimidating, and court-controlled.<\/td>Court said no such safeguards or clarifications were followed while recording testimony.<\/td><\/tr>
Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022 INSC 39)<\/strong><\/td>Supreme Court ruling on protection of vulnerable witnesses.<\/td>Cited to emphasize child witness handling standards.<\/td><\/tr>
Sahjan Ali v. State (2024 SCC OnLine Del 9079)<\/strong><\/td>Delhi HC precedent: \u201cPhysical relations\u201d or \u201csambandh\u201d alone don\u2019t prove rape.<\/td>Relied upon as binding precedent to acquit the accused.<\/td><\/tr>
Dipesh Tamang v. State of Sikkim (2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 24)<\/strong><\/td>Held that \u201cphysical relationship\u201d cannot be equated to \u201cpenetrative sexual assault.\u201d<\/td>Cited to reinforce that vague expressions cannot establish guilt.<\/td><\/tr>
Virender v. State (2009 SCC OnLine Del 3083)<\/strong><\/td>Delhi HC held that vague words like \u201cgalat kaam\u201d don\u2019t suffice to prove rape.<\/td>Referred to highlight need for explicit evidence in sexual offence trials.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Field<\/strong><\/td>Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Case Title<\/strong><\/td>Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma vs State (NCT of Delhi)<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Case Number<\/strong><\/td>Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2023<\/td><\/tr>
Court<\/strong><\/td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td><\/tr>
Coram (Bench)<\/strong><\/td>Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri<\/td><\/tr>
Date Reserved<\/strong><\/td>July 24, 2025<\/td><\/tr>
Date Pronounced<\/strong><\/td>October 17, 2025<\/td><\/tr>
FIR No.<\/strong><\/td>255\/2016<\/td><\/tr>
Police Station<\/strong><\/td>Alipur, Delhi<\/td><\/tr>
Sections Invoked<\/strong><\/td>Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012<\/td><\/tr>
Appellant (Accused)<\/strong><\/td>Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma<\/td><\/tr>
Respondent<\/strong><\/td>State (NCT of Delhi)<\/td><\/tr>
Advocates for Appellant<\/strong><\/td>Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Ms. Teestu Mishra, and Ms. Jaisal Singh<\/td><\/tr>
Advocates for Respondent (State)<\/strong><\/td>Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State<\/td><\/tr>
Advocate for Victim<\/strong><\/td>Ms. Tanya Agarwal<\/td><\/tr>
Trial Court Sentence (Before Appeal)<\/strong><\/td>10 Years Rigorous Imprisonment + \u20b9500 fine (in default, 7 days Simple Imprisonment)<\/td><\/tr>
Judgment Outcome<\/strong><\/td>Conviction set aside, Appellant acquitted and released forthwith<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways for Readers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n