Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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

01 June 2026 12:47 PM

By: sayum


"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

 

Latest Legal News