Untorn Clothes Of Alleged Victim Denotes Consent: Punjab & Haryana HC Acquits Man In Rape Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted a man in rape case observing discrepancy in the prosecutrix's testimony and that the alleged sexual intercourse was consensual as the clothes of the prosecutrix were not torn at the crime site.

The Court said, "The existence of untorn clothes of the prosecutrix, at the crime site, also is magnificatory that, as such, the prosecutrix was a consensual partner to hers allegedly becoming subjected to sexual intercourse(s) at the instance of the accused Arjun Singh, especially if she was a non-consensual partner to the sexual assault, therebys her clothes would have been torn, rather than her clothes being found in an untorn condition at the crime site."

The Court was hearing an appeal against conviction, wherein the man was convicted under 376 (2) (g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Another accused was also convicted under 376 (2) (g), however the Court acquitted him while noting that the victim had turned hostile.

The bench noted that, the prosecutrix deposed that she made hue and cry but "went unnoticed on account of the accused bolting the doors of the room from inside, thus obviously becomes falsified."

It further observed that, the prosecutrix did not disclose about the event to anyone while coming back to her home from the place of incident "thus naturally bespeaks about hers being a consensual partner to the sexual assault, if any, as became perpetrated upon her person by the accused."

While highlighting the discrepancy in prosecutrix's deposition, the bench noted in her previous statement she had stated she was wearing jeans and top and later she stated she was wearing suit.

"Therefore, the...improvement or embellishment, as made by the prosecutrix during hers recording her testification before the learned trial Judge concerned, thus from her previously recorded statement in writing before the police officer concerned, but leads to an inference that her rendered testification in Court, thus become unamenable for assignings of any credence thereto. In sequitur, the benefit thereof is to be assigned to the accused," the bench opined.

In the light of the above, the Court set aside the conviction.

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate

for the appellant (in both cases).

Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon (Legal Aid Counsel) for the appellant (in CRA-D-371-DB-2013)

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Title: XXXX v. AXXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 431