XXX v. XXX, 2025
The lack of immediate complaint, non-disclosure to the husband, and no medical evidence weakened the prosecution case.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
8 October 2025
Judges
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Kumari
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The accused was working as a labourer in a PG owned by the prosecutrix and her husband (an army officer).
-
The prosecutrix alleged that in February 2022, she was raped by the accused when she went to change clothes after ants came on her body.
-
She alleged that the accused held a pistol and mobile phone while sexually assaulting her and recorded the act.
-
The FIR was registered after two months of the alleged incident, in April 2022, upon a complaint by her husband.
-
The accused's wife had also previously filed a complaint against the prosecutrix and her husband, indicating prior animosity.
Issues
-
Whether the prosecutrix's testimony was reliable and sufficient to prove the rape charge?
-
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the surrounding circumstances cast doubt on the allegations?
-
Whether the High Court could interfere with the acquittal by the trial court?
Judgement
-
The acquittal by the trial court was upheld.
-
The Court observed that the prosecutrix’s testimony was not of sterling quality, containing evasiveness, contradictions, and implausible claims (e.g., holding a pistol, mobile, and committing rape simultaneously).
-
The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and her failure to inform her husband or take medical examination cast further doubt.
-
The Court held that a consensual relationship appeared more likely than rape.
-
It noted that "Had she been allegedly raped, she would have taken immediate action… Her conduct does not support the prosecution case."
Held
-
The trial court had rightly acquitted the accused, and no ground was found for interference in appeal.
-
The evidence was insufficient to overturn the acquittal or record a conviction.
Analysis
-
The judgment underscores the principle that for a rape conviction based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony, the evidence must be:
-
Sterling
-
Unassailable
-
Inherently credible
-
-
The lack of immediate complaint, non-disclosure to the husband, and no medical evidence weakened the prosecution case.
-
The Court rightly relied on Murugesan v. State [(2012) 10 SCC 383], holding that interference with an acquittal is warranted only when the view of the trial court is perverse or impossible which was not the case here.