Acquittal U/S 376 IPC | Consent Under Misconception of Fact Not Sustainable Without Medical Evidence: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the acquittal of Madan Yadav, who was charged with rape and other offenses under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The bench, comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla, emphasized the importance of medical evidence and noted the consensual nature of the relationship, spanning five years, between the accused and the complainant.
The case revolved around accusations by the complainant that Madan Yadav had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage, starting in 2014. The complainant alleged that Yadav’s behavior changed after securing employment and he ultimately refused to marry her, leading to the filing of an FIR in 2019. The trial court had acquitted Yadav of the serious charges, convicting him only under Section 323 IPC.
The High Court highlighted the lack of medical evidence due to the complainant’s refusal to undergo an internal examination. “The absence of a medical examination significantly undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case,” noted the bench. Dr. Pallavi Pandey, who initially examined the complainant, testified that the complainant declined further medical testing, raising doubts about the allegations.
The court extensively discussed the nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant. It was noted that both parties had engaged in a consensual relationship over five years. “The prolonged and voluntary nature of their relationship, spanning multiple years and locations, suggests that the complainant willingly participated in the relationship,” the court stated.
The bench analyzed the concept of consent within the context of Section 90 IPC. It found no evidence to suggest that the complainant’s consent was obtained through fraud or coercion. The judgment cited relevant Supreme Court rulings, including Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand, to emphasize that consent given over an extended period under voluntary circumstances cannot be retrospectively construed as rape.
“The refusal to submit to a medical examination casts a substantial shadow on the prosecution’s claims. The alleged threat to her brother, without any supporting evidence, further diminishes the credibility of the complainant’s allegations,” the bench observed.
The High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal sends a significant message regarding the evaluation of evidence in sexual offense cases. By emphasizing the lack of medical evidence and the consensual nature of the relationship, the judgment reinforces the need for concrete and corroborative evidence in such cases. This ruling is expected to impact future cases involving similar allegations, highlighting the judiciary’s cautious approach in distinguishing between consensual relationships and genuine instances of sexual assault.
Date of Decision: 30.05.2024
Informant/Victim vs. State of U.P. and Another
