Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Not Lightly Discarded, Victim’s Own Words Clear on Consent: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Rape Case

“Consent Is Determinative When Victim Is Major – Her Own Statements Before Magistrate and Doctor Belie Prosecution’s Case”, In a significant ruling that reaffirms the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding consent, burden of proof, and the sanctity of judicial confessions, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of Bhagwat Kushwaha, who had been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for rape and 5 years for abduction under Sections 376 and 366 IPC respectively.

Justice Achal Sachdev held that the trial court had fundamentally erred in ignoring material contradictions in the victim’s testimony, medical evidence that ruled out forcible sexual assault, and the unequivocal statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC, wherein she admitted going with the appellant out of love and free will.

The Court ruled that once the trial court itself held the prosecutrix to be a major, consent became the core issue, and the prosecution miserably failed to establish lack of it beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further found the trial court's analysis perverse, particularly its attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the accused by relying on deficiencies in cross-examination.

“A Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Is Not A Casual Document — It Bears Judicial Sanctity and Cannot Be Discarded on Mere Assertion”

In a critical finding, the High Court referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3510, emphasizing that retractions from judicially recorded statements must be accompanied by cogent explanations.

The Court stated: “To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before the Magistrate on flimsy grounds or mere assertions would effectively negate the difference between a statement recorded by the police officer and that recorded by a Judicial Magistrate.”

Here, the prosecutrix had clearly deposed under Section 164 CrPC that she was in a relationship with the appellant and had voluntarily gone with him, contradicting her later courtroom testimony alleging rape. The trial court, however, brushed aside the 164 statement as merely “corroborative,” without addressing why such a vital statement—made freely and in the presence of a judicial officer—should be discarded.

Trial Court’s Findings Held “Perverse and Condemnable” — Misread FIR Dates and Ignored Medical Contradictions

The High Court strongly criticised the trial court for misreading the date of the incident (as 25.05.2015 instead of the correct 28.05.2015), which led it to discard the medical evidence as delayed and inconclusive.

Justice Sachdev pointed out: “The trial court… has committed a serious error in judging the appellant being guilty of offence under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., by misreading the date of incident to be 25.05.2015 instead of 28.05.2015, and thereby disbelieving the medical evidence on record.”

The medical examination conducted on 30.05.2015 found no signs of recent sexual activity, and the hymen was found to be an old, healed tear. The vaginal smear test found no spermatozoa. Notably, the victim told the examining doctor that she had gone with the appellant on her own, and did not allege rape or abduction during that interaction, which was conducted in the presence of her mother.

The Court noted: “There is no possibility of the victim being tutored by her parents or police at the relevant point before the doctor. The doctor is an independent authority and the prosecution has concealed the fact that the victim made such a statement before the doctor.”

Trial Court Shifted Burden on Accused Without Discharging Prosecution’s Duty

The Court was categorical in asserting that the burden of proof in a rape case under IPC remains squarely on the prosecution unless statutory presumptions (like under Section 114A of the Evidence Act or Sections 29 & 30 of POCSO) are triggered, which was not the case here.

“It is not expected of a trial court to base its finding on the accused not asking a particular set of questions, but the court has to see that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden before the accused may be expected to answer the same.”

The Court observed that the trial court had improperly inferred guilt based on alleged deficiencies in defence cross-examination and had failed to critically evaluate whether the prosecution’s evidence, especially the victim’s contradictory statements, were reliable.

Consent, Not Mere Allegation, Determines Guilt When Victim Is Major

Once the trial court accepted that the victim was above 18 years at the time of the incident, the High Court emphasized that consent becomes the linchpin of the case. Referring to the landmark ruling in Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC 113, the Court reaffirmed that:

“Consent requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence… but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent.”

Given the prosecutrix’s clear admission of voluntary companionship, and absence of any immediate complaint of rape to either the doctor or Magistrate, the High Court held:

“There is no evidence on record, barring statement of victim before the trial court, that appellant forcibly imposed himself upon the victim and committed rape on her.”

Conviction Set Aside, Appellant Ordered to Be Released

Finding that the trial court had ignored foundational contradictions, misread documentary evidence, and violated settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, acquitting Bhagwat Kushwaha of all charges under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.

The Court ordered: “The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case… upon execution of personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

Date of Decision: 13 January 2026