Allahabad High Court raps defence lawyer for character assassination of rape victim

Calling it “wholly unbecoming of an advocate,” the Allahabad High Court recently deprecated the conduct of a defence lawyer who relied on scandalous affidavits attacking the character and dignity of a rape complainant.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a man challenging the charge-sheet and the cognizance order passed by a special court in Siddharth Nagar in a rape case registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Sections 64, 65, and 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (the SC/ST Act).

The high court noted that during the course of arguments, it repeatedly requested the counsel for the accused to restrict his submissions to material forming part of the case diary. However, the counsel persisted in advancing lengthy arguments based on affidavits filed by five other men against the complainant, alleging that she habitually extorted men by threatening false criminal cases.

The affidavits also contained other scandalous allegations directly questioning the complainant’s character. The affidavits were admittedly not part of the investigation record.

Taking strong exception to the contents of the affidavits, court held that the affidavits amounted to character assassination of the complainant.

The bench observed that any attempt to portray a woman as being of “easy virtue” or to cast aspersions on her moral character is wholly irrelevant and expressly barred under Section 53A (corresponding to Section 48 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) and the proviso to Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 149 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).

Such allegations, the court said, violate a woman’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and constitute an abuse of the process of law. The affidavits, it held, could not be considered and deserved to be ignored for all purposes.

The rape FIR was lodged on May 28, 2022, in which the complainant alleged that she had gone to the accused’s clinic for treatment, where he administered her a sedative pill on the pretext of medical care. According to the prosecution, the complainant became unconscious and was sexually assaulted during that period. She further alleged that she later discovered she was pregnant as a result of the assault. The complainant stated that she was a married woman with two children.

Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on September 30, 2022, upon which the special court took cognizance on November 10, 2022. Aggrieved, the accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.

Before the high court, counsel for the accused sought to assail the prosecution case by relying on the abovementioned affidavits. Moreover, he raised a plea of alibi, claiming that the accused was posted elsewhere at the relevant time, and argued that the FIR had been lodged after an unexplained delay.

An affidavit purportedly filed by the complainant herself was also cited, wherein she allegedly retracted her allegations.

Court not only refused to consider the affidavits, but also highlighted that the complainant’s statements recorded under Sections 161, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (corresponding to Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) and 164, CrPC (corresponding to Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) had remained consistent from the inception and duly supported the prosecution case.

As regards the argument on delay in lodging the FIR, the bench reiterated that in cases of sexual offences, delay is a matter to be examined during trial and cannot be a ground to interfere at the stage of cognizance.

On the defence plea of alibi, the bench noted that no such material was collected during investigation and that contradictory stands taken by the accused further weakened the defence.

It also observed that the affidavit allegedly filed by the complainant appeared, prima facie, to be prepared under influence and could not be relied upon at the pre-trial stage.

Accordingly, finding no legal infirmity in the charge-sheet or the cognizance order, the high court dismissed the appeal and directed that the trial proceed in accordance with law.

Before parting with the matter, court formally deprecated the conduct of the counsel for the accused for adopting what it described as an improper and impermissible practice of annexing affidavits containing scandalous allegations against a woman.

It held that such pleadings were wholly unbecoming of an advocate and struck at the very foundation of ethical advocacy.

The bench also took serious note of attempts to browbeat the court and of incorrect and misleading submissions regarding earlier orders, terming the conduct a serious lapse in professional standards and warning the counsel to exercise due care and restraint in future.

Case Title: Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another

Judgment Date: January 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Anil Kumar-X