Even If the Prosecutrix Is Accustomed to Sexual Intercourse, It Does Not Authorise Rape: Allahabad High Court Reduces Sentence, Upholds Conviction under Section 376 IPC

“A woman’s sexual past cannot be used to justify a sexual assault — consent is always indispensable,” Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that prior sexual conduct of the prosecutrix is irrelevant in determining the offence of rape. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, while setting aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, citing lack of caste-based intent. It reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, considering the age of the appellant and the prolonged passage of time since the incident.
 

The allegation in the case was that on December 11, 1997, the prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl from a Scheduled Caste, was returning from the fields after defecation when the appellant forcibly raped her in a nearby sugarcane field. The crime was said to have been witnessed by her father and uncle, though the accused fled and was later apprehended. The trial court convicted him under both IPC and SC/ST Act provisions.
 

Challenging the conviction, the appellant’s counsel argued that the medical examination showed no injuries, no presence of spermatozoa, and that the girl was “accustomed to sexual intercourse.” These arguments were strongly rebuffed by the High Court, which noted: “Even if the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse, it did not and cannot in law give licence to any person to rape her.”
 

The Court further remarked: “Absence of injuries on the body or private parts of the victim, or absence of spermatozoa in vaginal smear, is not necessarily evidence of falsity of the allegation or of consent.”
On the issue of the prosecutrix's age, the High Court relied on her high school certificate and medical evidence, both of which indicated that she was between 14 and 17 years of age. Thus, consent — even if assumed — was legally immaterial.
On the second charge, under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the Court held: “It is not sufficient to show that the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste; the prosecution must establish that the offence was committed on the ground that she was a member of a Scheduled Caste.”
 

Quoting Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771, the Court held that mere difference in caste or knowledge of caste status does not attract Section 3(2)(v). In the absence of proof of caste-based motive, the enhanced punishment under the SC/ST Act was found unsustainable.
 

However, while upholding the conviction under Section 376 IPC, the Court noted that the appellant was over 62 years of age, and the incident dated back nearly 27 years, during which he had remained on bail except for a brief four-month custody. The Court found it appropriate to reduce the sentence from 10 years to 7 years.
 

“Considering the long passage of time and the fact that the accused has not misused bail during this period, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence and enhance the fine to ₹1,00,000 to balance the scales of justice.”
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction for rape, set aside the SC/ST Act conviction for lack of caste-based motive, and modified the sentence while affirming the core principle that a woman’s consent is not to be presumed, prejudged, or ignored—regardless of her past.
 

Date of Decision: May 9, 2025