High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Acquittal U/S 376 IPC | Consent Under Misconception of Fact Not Sustainable Without Medical Evidence: Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Similar News