Contradictory Testimony, No Proof of Non-Consent: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction

The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for rape, holding that the trial court ignored crucial medical evidence, misread the record, and convicted him solely on a version of the prosecutrix that was riddled with contradictions.

Allowing a criminal appeal filed by Bhagwat Kushwaha, Justice Achal Sachdev set aside the 2019 conviction under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the prosecution failed to prove abduction or lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt, particularly after the victim was found to be a major at the time of the alleged incident.

An FIR waas lodged on 28 May 2015 by the victim’s father, alleging that his daughter had gone missing during the night and had been kidnapped by the appellant. The victim was recovered the following day from Mauranipur railway station and medically examined on 30 May 2015. While an ossification test later assessed her age as around 17 years, the prosecution did not place any documentary proof of age on record.

During trial, the court held that the victim was a major at the time of the incident, a finding that went unchallenged. On this basis, the appellant was acquitted of charges under the POCSO Act, Section 363 IPC, and the SC/ST Act. Despite this, the trial court proceeded to convict him for abduction and rape, relying almost entirely on the victim’s testimony before the court.

The High Court found this approach fundamentally flawed. It noted that the prosecutrix had given materially different versions at different stages of the proceedings. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC before a Magistrate, she had stated that she was in love with the appellant and had gone with him voluntarily. She made no allegation of rape in that statement.

A similar version was given to the doctor during her medical examination, where she stated that she had gone with the appellant and did not allege that she was forcibly taken or sexually assaulted. Court emphasised that this statement, made in the presence of her mother and at the earliest point in time, carried significant evidentiary value.

Medical evidence, the High Court noted, further weakened the prosecution case. The examining doctor found no external injuries on the victim’s body, no signs of recent sexual activity, and recorded that the hymen had an old, healed tear. The vaginal smear examination also revealed no live or dead spermatozoa. Court observed that there was “no possibility of tutoring” at the time of medical examination and that the prosecution had failed to explain why these findings were disregarded.

Justice Sachdev also flagged serious inconsistencies regarding the timeline of events. While the victim claimed she was recovered after two days, medical records showed she was examined on 30 May 2015. The trial court, the High Court noted, had wrongly assumed that the medical examination was conducted five days after the incident by incorrectly recording the date of occurrence as 25 May 2015, even though the FIR clearly mentioned 28 May 2015.

“This misreading of the record led the trial court to unjustifiably discard medical evidence favourable to the accused,” court observed, calling the approach “perverse” and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

On the issue of consent, the High Court reiterated that once the prosecutrix was found to be a major, her voluntary conduct assumed legal significance. Court held that there was no reliable evidence to establish that she had been abducted against her will or that sexual intercourse, if any, was without her consent.

The judgment also criticised the trial court for effectively shifting the burden of proof onto the accused, noting that in rape cases under the IPC, the prosecution must independently establish the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction, the Court stressed, cannot be sustained merely because the defence failed to put certain questions in cross-examination.

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and that the trial court had selectively relied on evidence to secure a conviction, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 5 and 6 September 2019, and directed the appellant’s immediate release, subject to execution of a bond as required under law.

Case Title: Bhagwat Kushwaha vs. State of U.P.

Judgment Date: January 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev