Substantial Improvements and Unexplained Delay Fatal to Prosecution: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in Alleged Rape of Sister in Law

“Testimony That Does Not Inspire Confidence Cannot Be the Sole Basis of Conviction” – The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of a man sentenced for allegedly raping his sister‑in‑law, holding that the unexplained one‑month delay in lodging the FIR, major contradictions throughout the prosecutrix’s statements, absence of medical or forensic support, and strong possibility of false implication linked to matrimonial discord, rendered the prosecution case wholly unreliable.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, emphasizing that the foundation of conviction must be the credibility of the testimony, observed:

“Where substantial and unexplained delay in lodging of FIR is accompanied by material improvements in the prosecutrix’s version, absence of medical corroboration and parallel divorce proceedings, the prosecution case cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

Allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant, the Court ruled that the trial court had erred in convicting in the absence of trustworthy evidence.

“Delay of One Month in Filing FIR Remains Unexplained”—Court Rejects Prosecution Narrative

The allegation related to the incident of 20 January 2015 and an attempted assault on 23 January 2015, but the FIR was filed only on 20 February 2015. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for waiting a full month, even after the prosecutrix had left the matrimonial home and was living independently.

Justice Ohri noted: “No explanation has been given as to why she or her mother did not inform the police on the day of the alleged second incident… Even after she started living separately, no steps were taken to register the complaint until 20.02.2015.”

The Court held that such unexplained delay casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the allegations.

“Material Contradictions and Continuous Improvements Shake the Very Core of Prosecution Story”

The Court found that the prosecutrix had added new allegations at every stage—from the written complaint to the Section 164 CrPC statement and later deposition before the trial court—making her testimony unreliable.

Initially alleging only rape and attempt to rape, later versions included acid‑attack threats, a coerced written letter, a plan to impregnate her through the appellant due to the husband’s infertility, voyeurism, and physical assaults, none of which found place in earlier statements.

The Court observed: “The improvements are neither minor nor innocuous. They affect the core of the prosecution’s case and cannot be brushed aside.”

“No Medical Corroboration—MLC Conducted a Month Later Records No Injuries”

The medical examination, conducted long after the alleged rape, recorded no injuries to the private parts, with the hymen noted as old‑torn and no forensic evidence produced.

The Court held: “Medical evidence does not support the prosecutrix’s claim of forcible intercourse. The absence of any forensic corroboration further weakens the case.

“Divorce, Maintenance Cases and Cash Settlement Suggest Motive for False Implication”

The High Court found merit in the defence that the complaint had been filed to pressure the husband, who was the appellant’s brother, in ongoing divorce and financial settlement proceedings.

The prosecutrix admitted:

• Husband’s infertility,

• Maintenance and DV cases,

• Seeking divorce, and

• ₹3,20,000 settlement in mediation, leading to mutual divorce proceedings.

Her husband, examined as DW1, produced a 2011 medical report showing no spermatozoa, and stated that she demanded divorce and filed the rape case to coerce him.

The Court concluded:

“The matrimonial backdrop cannot be ignored. The prosecutrix had a clear motive to implicate the appellant to pressure her husband with whom she had long‑standing marital discord.”

“Benefit of Doubt Must Be Granted—Prosecution Failed to Establish Guilt”

Finding that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden, the Court held that the appellant deserved acquittal.

“Substantial lacunae have emerged in the prosecution case, resulting in it not being proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled.

Date of Decision: 20 November 2025