-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof—injuries alone do not suffice to prove rape in absence of evidence of non-consensual act.” – Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitting three young men of gang rape charges, while affirming their conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that while the victim, a 23-year-old B. Pharmacy student, had suffered brutal burn injuries leading to her death, and the accused were present at the crime scene, the prosecution failed to establish the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and J ustice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed:
“Even in the presence of genital injuries, without legal proof that the act was against her will or consent, the charge of rape cannot be sustained.”
The appeal, therefore, was partly allowed, with the Court acquitting the appellants under Sections 376(d), 376(2)(n), and 376(2)(m) IPC, but re-imposing life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, which had earlier not been separately awarded due to the trial court’s sentencing logic under Section 71 IPC.
“Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Leaves No Doubt—Appellants Set Victim Ablaze”: Murder Conviction Affirmed Despite Acquittal on Rape
The incident occurred on 10 May 2014 in village Ojhara, District Khargone, when the victim was alone at home. She was discovered by neighbours engulfed in flames, and despite being rushed to the hospital with 96% burns, succumbed the next morning. Three college students—Ankit Rathore, Akshay Joshi, and Vishal Choudhary, all studying in the same B. Pharmacy college as the victim—were arrested from the scene. The trial court convicted them for gang rape, house trespass, and murder, imposing life imprisonment.
“Dying Declaration in Q&A Form Naming Accused Is Reliable Even Without Doctor’s Certificate”: Medical Certification Not Mandatory When Mental Fitness Is Established Otherwise
The bench upheld the evidentiary value of the dying declaration recorded by Tehsildar Pradeep Kourav on the same day of the incident, even though it lacked formal medical certification of fitness. The Court reasoned that the victim was responding coherently to questions, and the presence of doctors during the statement was sufficient assurance of her mental state.
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2973, stating:
“A medical certificate is only a rule of caution—not a legal mandate—so long as the declarant’s mental fitness is otherwise proven.”
The dying declaration (Ex.P/44) stated:
“Vishal, Ankit and Akshay set me on fire… they wanted something from me.”
The Court found this to be voluntary, consistent, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances such as presence of accused at the scene, burn injuries on the accused, and absence of any other intruder.
“Presence at Crime Scene Unexplained—False Explanation About Invitation Card Strengthens Inference of Guilt Under Section 302 IPC”
Rejecting the appellants’ claim that they visited the victim to deliver a wedding invitation, the Court noted that:
“No invitation card was recovered; and the explanation offered for being present in the victim’s home during unusual hours stands falsified.”
The Court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, highlighting that facts especially within the knowledge of the accused must be explained by them. The appellants’ silence regarding how the victim caught fire, and their inability to explain their own burn injuries, were found to be glaring omissions.
Justice Dwivedi wrote:
“Appellants cannot hide behind silence. When presence at the scene is admitted, failure to offer any explanation about the incident invites adverse inference.”
The accused were also found to have parked their motorcycle behind the victim’s house, further raising suspicion. One of them, Ankit, had burn injuries on his fingers. This injury was confirmed by Dr. Chandresh Dixit (PW-10), but denied by Ankit during trial, further damaging his credibility.
“Burn Injuries Do Not Automatically Prove Rape—Lack of Will or Consent Must Be Established Beyond Doubt”
While medical evidence confirmed genital injuries—including a torn hymen, contusions, and pubic hair disturbance—the Court held that such injuries alone cannot prove rape, especially in absence of dying declaration or forensic evidence indicating non-consensual sexual intercourse.
The Court observed:
“From the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC, it is essential that the act be proven to be against the will or without consent of the victim. This standard has not been met here.”
Quoting Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150, the bench stressed:
“Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof. Injuries, without more, do not transform into legal proof of rape.”
The Court found that the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’, thus creating reasonable doubt in favour of the appellants on the rape charges.
“Gang Rape Conviction Cannot Stand Without Reliable Proof of Absence of Consent”: Court Applies Strict Evidentiary Standard in Sexual Offence Cases
Rejecting the trial court’s finding on gang rape under Sections 376(d), 376(2)(n), and 376(2)(m) IPC, the High Court pointed out that no DNA evidence, semen traces, or forensic confirmation of assault against will was conclusively proved.
The bench reiterated that the burden to prove lack of consent lies with the prosecution, especially where there is no eyewitness or voluntary statement by the victim affirming lack of consent.
The Court clarified:
“Though injuries were present, they are not per se determinative of non-consensual intercourse. The law mandates something more—proof of coercion or absence of will.”
Hence, the appellants were acquitted of the rape charges.
“When Entry Is With Intent to Kill, House Trespass Attracts Section 449 IPC—Presence in Victim’s House at Time of Incident Proves Criminal Intent”
While setting aside the rape charges, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 449 read with 34 IPC, noting that the appellants:
Entered the victim’s house without invitation
Lied about their purpose
Were present during the commission of a fatal act
Offered no credible defence
Thus, the intent to commit murder inside the house was proven, satisfying the legal requirements of Section 449 IPC.
“Recalibration of Sentence Necessary After Acquittal on Rape Charge”: Life Imprisonment Reimposed Under Section 302 IPC Separately
The trial court had originally sentenced the appellants under the rape provision, treating it as the graver offence under Section 376(d)/34 IPC, and had not awarded separate sentence under Section 302 IPC (murder), citing Section 71 IPC.
However, upon acquittal from rape charges, the High Court corrected the sentencing as follows:
“Each appellant shall undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with a fine of ₹5,000. In case of default, they shall serve an additional six months' rigorous imprisonment.”
They were also held guilty under Section 449/34 IPC, with the sentence from the trial court left undisturbed.
This judgment reflects a balanced and constitutionally sound approach to adjudicating sexual offences and murder under the Indian Penal Code. While the Court did not hesitate to affirm the murder conviction based on a clear chain of circumstantial evidence and dying declaration, it also exercised judicial caution in acquitting the appellants of rape due to the lack of conclusive proof of non-consensual sexual activity.
It reaffirms the judicial principle that:
“Rape is a heinous crime—but suspicion or assumption cannot take the place of proof in law.”
The case will now serve as a reference point for evidentiary standards in both dying declarations and rape trials, especially those built on circumstantial evidence.
Date of Decision: 17 October 2025
