Bechan Prasad v. State of U.P. & Another, 2026
It reinforces that irrelevant character attacks have no place in criminal proceedings, especially in sensitive cases like rape.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
6 February 2026
Judges
Justice Anil Kumar
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
- The appellant, Bechan Prasad, was facing trial for rape under Section 376 IPC and SC-ST Act.
-
The victim, a married woman, alleged that the appellant administered a sedative under the pretext of treatment and raped her.
-
The trial court took cognizance and the charge-sheet was filed based on evidence collected during investigation.
-
The appellant’s counsel challenged cognizance, arguing the victim was a habitual blackmailer and submitted affidavits of five individuals claiming she was a “woman of easy virtue”.
-
The Assistant Government Advocate submitted that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were consistent and corroborated the prosecution’s case.
-
The High Court was asked to examine whether the cognizance order was valid and whether the extraneous affidavits could be relied upon.
Issues
-
Whether an advocate can rely on extraneous affidavits alleging that a rape survivor is a “woman of easy virtue” to discredit her during the stage of taking cognizance?
-
Whether such allegations violate the victim’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 and are legally permissible under the Indian Evidence Act?
-
Whether delay in lodging FIR or the past conduct of the victim can be grounds to discredit her version at the cognizance stage?
Judgement
-
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Bechan Prasad.
-
Observed that the advocate’s conduct of relying on scandalous affidavits to attack the victim’s character was improper and unethical.
-
Held that any attempt to portray a woman as of “easy virtue” is wholly irrelevant, amounts to character assassination, and is expressly barred under Sections 53A and 146 of the Indian Evidence Act.
-
Emphasized that such pleadings violate the victim’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21.
-
Noted that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were consistent and corroborated, forming valid evidence.
-
Rejected the alibi plea and delay arguments as unsupported or irrelevant at the stage of taking cognizance.
-
Declared that extraneous affidavits questioning the victim’s character should be expunged and ignored.
Held
-
Advocates must exercise due care and restraint, and cannot rely on extraneous material attacking the victim’s character.
-
A woman’s past conduct or character cannot be used to defeat her legal rights.
-
The cognizance order and charge-sheet are valid, and the appeal is dismissed.
-
Emphasized ethical advocacy and protection of victim’s dignity in criminal proceedings.
Analysis
-
Reaffirms the principle of victim protection under Article 21.
-
Highlights the role of courts in ensuring ethical advocacy, discouraging attempts to intimidate or browbeat the court.
-
Reinforces that irrelevant character attacks have no place in criminal proceedings, especially in sensitive cases like rape.
-
Clarifies that delay in FIR or victim’s alleged behavior cannot discredit her case at the initial stage of cognizance.
-
Serves as a warning to legal practitioners regarding professional conduct and respect for procedural and substantive rights of survivors.