Delay of 9 Months in Lodging Rape FIR ‘Fatal to Prosecution’: MP High Court Upholds Acquittal, Cites Victim’s Own Statements and Medical Evidence

"No signs of recent sexual assault... prior sexual activity admitted — relationship was consensual” - In a significant ruling Madhya Pradesh High Court (Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh) dismissed an appeal filed by a rape survivor against the acquittal of three accused persons, finding that the allegations of rape, drugging, and criminal conspiracy were not substantiated by medical, forensic, or testimonial evidence.

“Unexplained Delay Shows Afterthought, Not Trauma” – Court Finds FIR Timing Suspicious

The Court gave considerable weight to the nine-month delay in the filing of the FIR. The alleged incident occurred between 6th and 8th February 2021, and the victim was discharged from AIIMS Bhopal on 24th February 2021. Yet, the FIR was filed only on 11th November 2021.

The bench categorically observed:“Even if COVID period from March to June is discounted, the delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained. This delay is not a mere procedural lapse — it is fatal to the credibility of the entire prosecution case.”

The FIR (Ex.P-2) merely stated that the delay was due to "fear and shame", but this was directly contradicted by the victim’s conduct post-incident, which included travelling back with the accused, undertaking jungle safari, and not alerting anyone, including the resort staff or local authorities.

“MLC Speaks Louder Than Allegations” – Medical Report Reveals No Evidence of Recent Assault

One of the key pieces of evidence relied upon by the Court was the Medical Examination Report (Ex.P-21) conducted by Dr. Soniya Singh, and proved by Dr. Abhishek Mishra (PW-11). The Court emphasized:

“No signs and symptoms of recent intercourse... she has been sexually active previously… as per her own history, she had a 10-month friendship and 9-month physical relationship with the accused.”

The report made no mention of the victim being administered sedatives or forcibly assaulted — allegations central to the prosecution story. The absence of such crucial findings in the MLC demolished the core of the prosecution's claim that she had been drugged and repeatedly raped.

“Victim’s Own Admissions Undermine Her Case” – Court Finds Contradictions in Testimony

The Court examined the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement and her cross-examination and found numerous material contradictions. She admitted to:

• Voluntarily accompanying the accused Lakshya Keshwani on a trip;

• Not informing the resort manager or anyone else about any alleged wrongdoing;

• Participating in a jungle safari with the accused the next day, seated next to him;

• Returning home as a pillion rider on the accused’s motorcycle;

• Withdrawing an earlier complaint made at Raisen, stating in writing that “Lakshya had not committed any incident with her.”

The Court noted:“She travelled back with the accused, had dinner, went on a safari, and later claimed sedatives had rendered her unconscious. These narratives are irreconcilable. Her conduct post-incident contradicts the prosecution version.”

“No Semen, No Forcible Entry, No Corroboration” – Forensic Report Disproves Allegations

The Forensic Report (Ex.P-41) from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, was unequivocal. It stated:

“No human sperm was found on the vaginal slide, pubic hair, underwear of the victim, or the accused.”

The photographs marked as Article A & B, admitted by the victim to have been retrieved from her own phone and laptop, depicted intimate moments between her and Lakshya. She could not explain the circumstances under which these photographs were taken but did not deny their authenticity.

The Court observed:“These photographs speak volumes. There is no trace of resistance, reluctance, or force. Her own certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act affirms their authenticity.”

“Chandrappa Doctrine Applies — Acquittal Not to Be Interfered Without Perversity”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, the High Court reiterated that:

“The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the view taken by the trial court is palpably perverse or unreasonable. Here, the trial court's conclusions are rooted in sound appreciation of facts and law.”

The Court found no perversity, no misappreciation of evidence, and no alternative view that could warrant intervention.

“Dowry Allegations Collapsed Too — Matrimonial Dispute Can't Morph into Rape Case”

The Court noted that allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence raised against accused Varun Dhakad and Vineeta Dhakad also lacked substance. The victim herself admitted that she had not returned to her matrimonial home post-February 2021, and her statements about dowry were inconsistent and unsubstantiated.

The judgment concluded:“Matrimonial discord appears to have been weaponized into serious criminal allegations. But the law demands evidence — not emotional assertion. When a holistic view is taken, no indulgence can be shown.”

The Court dismissed I.A. No. 10583/2025, the application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, and simultaneously rejected the main appeal filed under Section 41 of BNSS, 2023. The acquittal of all three accused was upheld.

“Appeal fails. The trial court’s view is not only plausible but the only one supported by the record. There is no scope for judicial interference.”

Date of Decision: 3 November 2025