If Two Views Are Possible, The One Favouring the Accused Must Prevail — Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Alleged Rape and Trespass Case

“Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof” , Andhra Pradesh High Court  refused to overturn the acquittal of a man accused of raping a woman inside her home. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao reaffirmed the “double presumption of innocence” in favour of an acquitted person, warning that an appellate court must not disturb a trial court’s finding unless it is “perverse, clearly unreasonable, or manifestly illegal.”

The prosecution alleged that at dawn on March 31, 2003, the accused trespassed into the victim’s house, “latched the door, gagged her mouth, tied her hands, and committed rape,” threatening to kill her if she spoke. Forensic analysis detected semen on her clothing, and the State argued that her testimony, supported by relatives and medical evidence, was sufficient to convict. The Sessions Court at Anantapur, however, found contradictions, improbabilities, and unexplained delays that undermined the prosecution’s story, and acquitted the accused in 2007.

Justice Rao began by recalling the Supreme Court’s guidance that “an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so,” and that in such appeals, the presumption of innocence is “further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.”

In reappraising the evidence, the Court found the trial judge’s doubts to be reasonable. “It is contrary to the normal course of human conduct,” the judge noted, “to expect that a woman… would remain passive and offer no resistance whatsoever” while being gagged, bound hand and foot, and assaulted. The absence of even minor injuries, the late appearance of these restraint details at trial (and their omission from the FIR), and the physical improbability of intercourse if the victim’s ankles were tied all weighed heavily against the prosecution’s claim.

The Court also pointed to the “inordinate and unexplained delay” of five days in filing the complaint. Citing precedent, Justice Rao observed: “Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR inevitably gives rise to suspicion… and puts the court on guard to look for possible motive and explanation for the delay.” Given that the victim told family members soon after the alleged assault, fear alone could not justify the delay.

Even the medical evidence, the Court said, was not conclusive of rape, as the victim’s husband lived with her at the time. “The possibility of consensual sexual intercourse between PW1 and her husband on the same night cannot be ruled out,” the judgment remarked.

Summing up, Justice Rao reiterated: “Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof… If two views are possible on the evidence, the one favouring the accused should be adopted.” Finding “no misdirection or misinterpretation” in the Sessions Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the acquittal intact.

Date of Decision: August 7, 2025