Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 30 March, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M)
Reserved On : March 09, 2026
Pronounced On : March 30, 2026
Sxxxxxx .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * *
Present : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant (through VC)
Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana.
* * *
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. :
1. Appellant/prosecutrix (name withheld) has preferred the instant appeal against judgment dated 14.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Court for Fast Tracking of Heinous Crime against Women), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as - the Trial Court), vide which respondent No.2/accused Julfkar @ Julfa has been acquitted in case FIR No.97 dated 19.05.2022, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Women, District Karnal.
2. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the brief facts, as per prosecution version is that on 19.05.2022, the appellant moved an application with the police, wherein it was stated that she was illiterate. The house of accused Julfkar was near to her house. He had been talking to her MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 2 on phone since about a year. He enticed her and took her in the fields of Asim and Alma in Village Mundogarhi many times and committed rape upon her, on the pretext of marriage. His brother Nazim used to support him. However, when the family of the complainant came to know about all this, she stopped talking with the accused, on asking of her family members. Thereafter, accused Julfkar and Nazim came to her house in the absence of her family members and accused Julfa again committed rape upon her and also threatened to kill her if she would disclose the matter to anyone. Nazim threatened her while showing the pistol and molested her. The prosecutrix moved an application to the police of Police Station Gharaunda, who put pressure on her family and obtained her thumb impressions under pressure and sent her back to her house. Upon the said application, the aforesaid FIR was registered.
3. During investigation, statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Her medical examination was got conducted. Rough site plan of place of occurrence was prepared after inspecting the place. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, on 21.05.2022, the accused was arrested. On his disclosure statement, he got demarcated the place of occurrence. However, co-accused namely Nazim was found innocent during investigation and therefore, Sections 354 and 34 IPC were deleted and thereafter, Challan was presented in the Court.
4. Offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat on 29.07.2022. MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 3
5. Finding a prima facie case, charges for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC were framed against the accused vide order dated 24.08.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. As many as eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded while putting all incriminating evidence to him. He claimed innocence and false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused, except some documentary evidence.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to go through the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case.
8. The appellant/complainant/prosecutrix appeared as her own witness as PW-1 and reiterated the version given by her in the complaint, moved before the police Authorities. Dr. Birender Nath, who conducted medical examination of accused, appeared as PW-2 and deposed that there was nothing to show that the accused was not capable of performing sexual act. PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, Ahlmad to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, deposed that the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by learned Magistrate. He also proved signatures of the Presiding Officer. PW-4 Sumit Kumar Singla - Halqa Patwari deposed about preparation of scaled site plan Ex.P-9/PW-4 at the instance of Investigating Officer. PW-5 Dr. Swati Kalia, who examined the prosecutrix, deposed that possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. PW-6 'SJ' - mother of the prosecutrix deposed on the similar lines as her daughter and reiterated the stand taken by the prosecutrix. PW-7 ASI MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 4 Parveen Lata - the Investigating Officer of the case deposed about various investigation proceedings conducted by her, giving details therein and also stated that Challan/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared on 10.06.2022. PW-8 L/HC Manjeet remained associated with the Investigating Officer and she was the attesting witness of various documents prepared, throughout the investigation of the case.
9. On the other hand, respondent no.2/accused did not examine any witness in his defence and only documentary evidence was produced by him.
10. After considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court found the same to be woefully insufficient to convict the accused who was accordingly acquitted of the offences for which he had been charge-sheeted, vide impugned judgment dated 14.08.2025.
11. Aggrieved of the said decision, present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant challenging acquittal of the accused/ respondent No.2.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the testimony of prosecutrix, if trustworthy, is sufficient to convict the accused even without any corroboration. The Trial Court has given undue weightage to the minor inconsistencies like absence of specific dates or contradictions in Ex.D-A or Ex.D-B, which are natural in case of a victim of sexual assault. Such discrepancies cannot override the core allegations of repeated rape and threats. The Trial Court also failed to appreciate that consent of the MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 5 prosecutrix was obtained only on the false assurance of marriage, which was false from very inception. He argued that the medical examination is also corroborative to the ocular version given by the prosecutrix and it was observed by the doctor concerned that possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. He urged that the learned Trial Court magnified trivial discrepancies and overlooked the case of the prosecutrix that she was induced into sexual relations on the false assurance of marriage. The Trial Court also wrongly considered the delay in lodging the FIR as fatal. In sexual assault cases, delay is natural due to fear of stigma and social pressure. He contended that it is apparent that the material evidence on record has been misread, misconstrued and misapplied to the facts of the case in hand and therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside and accused persons be convicted and punished, as per the offences committed by them.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also carefully perused the relevant record.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another - (2019) SCC online SC 1073 discussed "consent" in rape cases, especially with regard to promise of marriage, which is reproduced as under :-
"To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the 'consent' of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the 'consent' was vitiated by a 'misconception of fact' arising out of a promise of marriage must have been a false MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 6 promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."
15. So from the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid case (supra) it is easily evincible that consent of prosecutrix to physical intercourse would be said to have been fraudulently obtained, if it is established that accused had extended a false promise of marriage knowingly, without having any intention to keep his promise since the inception of relationship.
16. Undoubtedly, statement of victim carries immense significance and accused can be convicted solely on her statement, if her statement is unblemished, consistent and de hors concoction and if she is a 'sterling witness'.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, recently, in case titled Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar - Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2020, decided on 14.02.2020, defined 'sterling witness' as whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. The version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.
MONIKA2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 7
18. The case of the prosecution primarily hinges on the testimony of the prosecutrix and in the light of ratio of law laid down in the cases (supra), it is to be scrutinized that whether the prosecutrix is found to be sterling witness or not.
19. In the present case, prosecutrix stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed on oath as per the prosecution version. The present case was registered on the basis of application (Ex.P-1), moved by the prosecutrix 'S', alleging that the accused committed rape upon her on multiple occasions under the false promise of marriage and also extended threats to her. She also stated therein that accused Julfkar was her neighbour and had acquaintance with her since last one year and they used to have telephonic conversation with each other. She alleged that accused committed rape upon her on several occasions in the fields of Alma and Asim. In Ex.P-1, no specific dates of such incidents were disclosed by the prosecutrix. In her statement (Ex.P-2), recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the accused had been committing wrong acts with her for the last one year under the pretext of false promise of marriage. Again in Ex.P- 2, specific dates of alleged incidents of rape were not mentioned. While appearing as PW-1 in the Court for the first time, the prosecutrix disclosed that the accused firstly committed rape upon her in the fields of Alma and Asim on 01.01.2022 against her wishes.
20. During her cross-examination, she stated that she was in friendship with the accused for the last one year prior to registration of the FIR in question and they had been talking with each other on phone. She MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 8 also stated that she had not met the accused prior to 01.01.2022 at any point of time and she firstly met the accused in the sugarcane fields of Alma and Asim. She admitted that she had gone to the fields of Alma and Asim along with accused on 5-6 occasions. However, she was not aware about any specific dates. She further categorically admitted that when the accused called her on 01.01.2022 to the fields of Alma and Asim, she did not disclose this fact to her parents, her sisters as well as her brother. She stated that her parents did not like her talking on phone with the accused. The Trial Court has rightly observed that from the testimony of the prosecutrix, it is quite evident that the prosecutrix and accused were in consensual relationship with each other and had been regularly talking to each other on phone and also used to meet each other at various places.
21. PW-7 ASI Parveen Lata - Investigating Officer of this case also testified that the victim had never disclosed to her that the accused had committed rape upon her on 01.01.2022 and she did not produce any evidence qua the said incident dated 01.01.2022. She also stated that as per her investigation, no incident dated 01.01.2022 had happened with the victim.
22. As per MLR Ex.P-10/PW-5 of the victim, the victim disclosed the last episode of sexual assault with her on 18.04.2022, whereas no such incident dated 18.04.2022 found any mention in her application Ex.P-1, filed before the police as well as in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-2) and in her testimony while appearing before the court as PW-1.
MONIKA2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 9
23. The prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, stated that she had made a call to dial 112 on 16.05.2022, upon which, the police had come to her house and recorded her statements Ex.D-A and Ex.D-B. In statement Ex.D-A, the prosecutrix stated that she had made call to dial 112 under the fear that her father would beat her, whereas now she had no fear of her father and wanted to reside with her family. In her statement Ex.D-B, she stated that on 16.05.2022, she had made a call to dial 112 and police recorded her statement. She stated that yesterday night, she had gone to the house of Julfkar and his parents had thrown her out of the house. She deposed that she was in relationship with Julfkar for the last one year and wanted to perform marriage with him. The Trial Court has rightly pointed out that thus, in both the aforesaid statements Ex.D-A and Ex.D-B, the prosecutrix did not level any allegation of rape upon the accused.
24. It appears that the prosecutrix was not aware about the contents of Ex.P-1, upon the basis of which, the present FIR had been registered. In her cross-examination, she stated that application Ex.P-1 was got typed by her in District Courts Complex, Karnal from some typist and at that time, her father and some villagers were present there. She categorically deposed that she could not read the contents of application Ex.P-1 because she was illiterate. She further deposed that the application Ex.P-1 was typed by the typist on the dictation of her father and co-villagers.
25. It is pertinent to note that there is huge unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR in the present case. As deposed by the prosecutrix, the first incident of rape had taken place on 01.01.2022, whereas the application MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 10 Ex.P-1, the basis for registration of FIR in the present case, had been moved by her on 19.05.2022. As already discussed, her statements Ex.D-A and Ex.D-B are silent regarding any such incident of rape. Nothing has come on record to establish that delay was due to an attempt to protect the honour and reputation of prosecutrix or her family. Delay in the present case has assumed more significance when there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the version of the prosecutrix regarding the allegations of rape and when initially, no specific dates of alleged incidents of rape had been disclosed by her in her application (Ex.P-1) and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-2). Even no corroborating medical evidence is on record to substantiate the alleged allegations of rape. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any external injury was suffered by her due to alleged incidents of rape. If the statement of the prosecutrix does not seem to be worthy of credence, then it is not safe to make it the basis of convicting the accused.
26. Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajoo vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - (2008) 15 SCC 133, which reads as under :
"9. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 11 we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the court. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the Accused as well. The Accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of Accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."
27. In another case titled Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat versus State of Maharashtra - 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 858 (SC), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there can be no general and universal rule that a woman cannot make false allegations or will not put her character at stake. Such an aspect has to be determined in light of factual matrix of each case.
28. The prosecutrix was a major and had attained the age of discretion and was well aware about the sexual relationship and the circumstances of the case do not reflect anything, which could be considered MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 12 as allurement, inducement or mis-representation on the part of the accused, which could have generated consent on the part of the prosecutrix bringing it within the purview of misconception of facts under Section 90 of IPC and relations between the accused and the prosecutrix were consensual in nature.
29. Learned Trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others - Criminal Appeal No.1443/18 (SLP) (Criminal) 6532/18, decided on 22.11.2018, wherein it was held that there is a clear cut distinction between rape and consensual sex. It has to be scrutinized whether accused had any mala fide and false promise was made merely to satisfy lust. Mere breach of promise and non-fulfillment of false promise are different. When relationship is established, not solely on account of misconception but there is acknowledged consensual relationship, same would not constitute the offence of rape.
30. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be fairly inferred that the prosecutrix was not under any misconception of facts and rather was in a consensual relationship with the accused as per her own free will. Later on, when the relationship between them turned sour, then the present FIR was got registered by the prosecutrix against the accused.
31. In the facts and circumstances of present case, the sole statement of prosecutrix is not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused. In such a situation, the Court is enjoined to explore some corroboration which is not available in the present case, which makes the MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 13 case of the prosecution doubtful.
32. After analyzing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
33. It is a settled law that an order of acquittal is not to be interfered with lightly because presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pudhu Raja and another vs. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police - 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 430, wherein it has been held as under :-
"7. The law on the issue of interference with an order of acquittal is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial courts acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
34. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned decision dated 14.08.2025, which calls for interference.
35. In view of the above, the present appeal, being bereft of any MONIKA 2026.04.02 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AD-56-2026 (O&M) 14 merit, is hereby dismissed and impugned judgment dated 14.08.2025, passed by learned Trial Court is upheld.
36. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of along with this judgment.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR) (ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE JUDGE
March 30, 2026
monika
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
MONIKA
2026.04.02 10:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document