Rajasthan High Court Upholds Asha Ram's Conviction For Rape, Sentence For 'Remainder Of Natural Life' Maintained; Co-Accused Acquitted

"For a rape victim does not merely carry a wound. She carries an erasure, of her dignity, of her identity, of the self she was before the moment which not only completely destroyed, but cleaved her life into a before and an after," Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 27, 2026, upheld the conviction of self-styled godman Asha Ram @ Ashumal for the rape of a minor girl in 2013, confirming the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed that the victim, a child then, was "robbed of her honour for the rest of her life" by a man she and her parents worshiped as a spiritual guide. While upholding the primary conviction, the court acquitted two co-accused, Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra, finding a lack of evidence regarding their involvement in a criminal conspiracy.

The prosecution case arose from an incident on August 15, 2013, where the victim, a 16-year-old student at Asha Ram's Chhindwara Gurukul, was allegedly sexually assaulted at the Manai Ashram near Jodhpur under the pretext of "ghost healing." In 2018, a Special POCSO Court at Jodhpur convicted Asha Ram under various sections of the IPC and POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Two staff members of the Gurukul were also convicted for their alleged roles in facilitating the crime. All three convicts approached the High Court challenging the trial court's judgment.

The primary question before the court was whether the victim was a "child" as defined under the POCSO Act and if the evidence established her minority at the time of the offence. The court was also called upon to determine whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable in the absence of ocular corroboration and whether the co-accused had a "meeting of minds" with Asha Ram to facilitate the assault, thereby attracting liability for criminal conspiracy.

Court Upholds Matriculation Certificate For Determining Victim's Age

The court rejected the appellant's contention that the trial court erred in determining the victim's age. Relying on the ratio in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the bench held that the matriculation certificate is the highest-rated option for age determination. The court found that the victim's consistent academic records from Class II to Class XII proved her date of birth as July 4, 1997, making her a minor at the time of the incident on August 15, 2013.

"The highest rated option would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child is the highest rated option."

Absence Of Ocular Corroboration Not Fatal In Crimes Committed In Secrecy

Addressing the defense argument that the victim's sole testimony lacked corroboration, the court noted that the assault took place inside a locked room in the dead of night. The bench observed that demanding third-party witnesses for a crime committed in deliberate secrecy would be "punishing the victim for the very isolation her abuser engineered." It held that the victim's account stood unimpeached despite a grueling 81-page cross-examination.

"Innocence does not seek darkness and bolted doors. The intent writes itself across these facts in letters too large to ignore. To demand corroborative ocular evidence before believing the victim would be to demand the impossible."

Intact Hymen Does Not Disprove Penetrative Sexual Assault

The court repelled the contention that the medical report, which revealed an intact hymen and no visible injuries, rendered the victim's version suspicious. It clarified that the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC includes various acts of penetration, including oral sex and manipulation. Since there were no allegations of forcible vaginal intercourse involving penetration by the penis, the medical findings were not inconsistent with the victim's testimony.

"The act of kissing of vagina and manipulation of the body to cause penetration in the mouth satisfies the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 375 of the IPC."

Co-Accused Acquitted Due To Lack Of Proof Regarding Criminal Conspiracy

In a significant relief to co-accused Shilpi and Sharad Chandra, the High Court set aside their convictions. The bench noted that while they suggested the parents take the victim to Asha Ram for "ghost healing," there was no evidence they knew of his evil intentions. The court held that it is against normal human nature to assume that a religious leader would disclose his intent to sexually exploit a girl to his subordinates.

"If at all they had known of any such intention of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal, they were most unlikely to do his bidding. It is, therefore, difficult to say that there was a prior meeting of mind and conspiracy."

Court Refuses Leniency Despite Appellant’s Advanced Age

Asha Ram, now 86, sought leniency based on his age and ailments. However, the court found the breach of trust by a "self-styled godman" toward a devoted child disciple to be an aggravating factor. The bench emphasized that for the appellant, imprisonment is merely physical, but for the victim, the "sentence imposed upon her soul is lifelong."

"We are unable to grant any indulgence, since the shadow of his frailty cannot justify ignoring the victim's voice. To ignore it would be to shake society's faith in the criminal justice system, and send a wrong message."

The High Court upheld Asha Ram's conviction under Sections 370(4), 342, 509, 506, 354A, and 376(2)(f) of the IPC, along with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. His sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life was maintained. However, the court set aside his conviction for gang rape (Section 376D) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B). Co-accused Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra were acquitted of all charges and their sentences were set aside.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2026