Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 17 March, 2026
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M)
Date of Reserved: 24.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 17.03.2026
SXXXXX ....Appellant.
Versus
Satbir and others ...Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
.......
Present: Mr. C.R. Narwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
1. Appellant/ prosecutrix has preferred the instant appeal against judgment dated 13.10.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which respondents/ accused have been acquitted.
2. Factual scenario, as unfolded by prosecution is that on 27.07.2021, a telephonic intimation was received by the police from the Primary Health Centre (PHC), Kajlan, regarding the recovery of a fetus in the toilet of the PHC. On the said information, SI Gurnaminder Singh along with other police officials reached the PHC, where Dr. Sanjeev, In-charge of the PHC, submitted a written application stating that the toilet of he PHC was blocked for the last 2-3 days. On 27.07.2021, during the process of cleaning by Surender, Sweeper, an undeveloped fetus was recovered. On the KOMAL basis of the said application, an FIR under Section 318 IPC was registered 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 2 and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. During investigation, on 29.07.2021, the prosecutrix along with her aunt Angrejo was also present. Subsequently, Ms. Anurag Bhardwaj, Legal Advisor, was called, and after her arrival, the prosecutrix was duly counseled and her statement was recorded. In her statement, the prosecutrix disclosed that she was 10+2 pass and ITI diploma holder, hailing from a family of five sisters and one brother, with two elder and two younger sisters. She stated that she had known Satbir for the last two years, who had been repeatedly committing sexual intercourse with her against her will. She further stated that on 10.03.2021, under threat, Satbir took her to a hotel situated at Talaki Gate, Hisar, where he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her three times against her consent and threatened her with dire consequences. Subsequently, she conceived and informed Satbir in May 2021. On 10.07.2021, Satbir assured her that he would procure tablets, and on 15.07.2021, he handed her five tablets. On 21.07.2021, upon consuming all those tablets, she suffered from vomiting and loose motions. On 22.07.2021, experiencing severe abdominal pain, she confided in her aunt Angrejo, who took her to PHC Kajlan. Thereafter, while urinating in the toilet, she miscarried, and the fetus was flushed into the sewerage. Thereafter, she along with her aunt returned home. On the basis of her statement, an FIR under Sections 315, 376(2)(n), 506 IPC, Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the MTP Act was registered. On 30.07.2021, the prosecutrix was produced before MAMC Agroha for medico-legal examination. Her MLR and blood samples for DNA were collected. Thereafter, accused Satbir was arrested on 04.08.2021, subjected to medical examination at MAMC Agroha, and samples were drawn for KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 3 DNA analysis. Section 376 IPC was accordingly added. Despite repeated interrogations, accused Satbir did not cooperate regarding the MTP kit. Demarcation reports were accordingly prepared. The case property was deposited at FSL Madhuban. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities the challan against the accused was presented before the Court for commencement of trial.
3. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(D), 506 read with Section 34 IPC, 315 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5, of MTP Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses.
PW1 prosecutrix deposed as per the prosecution story and narrated about her woes at the hands of the accused.
PW2 Raju Walia, Draftsman, prepared the scaled site plan EX.P6.
PW3 Dr. Sparsha, Consultant, Sonakshi IVF Centre, Jind, medico-legally examined the prosecutrix and proved the copy of the MLR. She further deposed that she handed over to the police one sealed parcel containing head hair, pubic hair, high vaginal swab, low vaginal swab, vaginal smear (high and low), clothes, and blood samples for DNA analysis, along with two plain vials, all sealed with the seal of GH.
PW4 Ms. Anurag Bhardwaj, Advocate, District Bar, Hisar, counseled the victim and prepared her counselling report Ex.P20. KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 4 PW5 Dr. Bhupinder Singh, Medical Officer, medico legally examined the the accused and proved the copy of his MLR. He further deposed that he handed over to the police the sealed parcels containing pubic hair, blood samples for DNA profiling, urethral swab for smegma, coronal swab, and the underwear of accused Kuldeep.
PW6 Ms. Anju Bala, Staff Nurse, PHC Kajla deposed that she advised the victim twice that if she did not experience any relief, she ought to be referred to Hisar for further treatment. Thereafter, she advised the victim's brother to take her to Hisar for further management. At the relevant time, the victim's maternal aunt (Mausi) was accompanying her and had taken her to the toilet on two occasions on the pretext that the victim was suffering from loose motion. Subsequently, the victim was taken back home by her maternal aunt and brother.
PW7 ASI Surajmal, testified that on 27.07.2021, he received police proceedings Ex.P27, consequent thereto, he registered the FIR, as Ex.P28, and appended his endorsement thereon as Ex.P29.
PW8 Anil Kumar, Clerk, Tehsil Office, Adampur, proved the copy of the caste certificate as Ex.P5.
PW9 Dr. Sanjeev, Medical Officer, CHC Bodopal, Fatehabad, deposed that on 27.07.2021, he arranged to have the toilet pit cleaned by Surender, Sweeper, as it had remained blocked for 2-3 days. During the course of such cleaning, one undeveloped fetus was recovered. Thereafter, he immediately sent intimation to the SHO, Police Station Agroha. He further deposed that on the same day, the police reached PHC Kajla, whereupon he handed over the said fetus to the police. He also produced the original OPD register maintained from 17.07.2021 to 27.07.2021. KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 5 PW10 Dr. R.P. Singhal (Retired Professor), conducted an ultrasound examination of the victim and prepared his reports, Ex.P34 and Ex.P35. He further proved the corresponding ultrasound images as Ex.P36 and Ex.P37.
PW11 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Medical Officer, MAMC, Agroha, prepared the MLR of accused Manoj Kumar and proved the computerized copy of the same as Ex.P39. He further opined that there was nothing in the examination to suggest that Manoj Kumar was incapable of sexual activity.
PW12 Dr. Parbhu Dayal, SMO, Civil Hospital, Hisar, deposed that on 27.07.2021, he was posted as SMO and Nodal Officer PNDT and he received information from the CMO, Hisar, regarding finding a human fetus in the toilet of PHC Kajla. Thereafter, the Civil Surgeon instructed him to liaise with Dr. Sanjeev, Medical Officer, PHC Kajla, to ensure police notification and conduct a post-mortem of the fetus. Thereafter, he investigated the matter accordingly.
PW13 Surender, Sweeper, PHC Kajla, deposed that on 27.07.2021, while cleaning the blocked toilet, he discovered an undeveloped fetus. He immediately informed the In-charge of PHC, Dr. Sanjeev. Subsequently, police arrived and recorded his statement.
PW14 Rubi, Staff Nurse, PHC Kajla, deposed that on 22.07.2021 at approximately 4:00 PM, the victim accompanied by her aunt (Mausi), visited PHC Kajla with complaint of abdominal pain. Her aunt informed her that the victim was experiencing urinary retention. She checked the victim's blood pressure and performed cauterization. Her aunt further stated that the victim was experiencing vomiting and loose motions and had already received treatment from an RMP. She administered a KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 6 painkiller injection and thereafter handed over the victim to Staff Nurse Anju Bala, advising that in the absence of relief, the victim should be referred to a higher medical center.
PW15 Suman, MPHW, PHC Kajla, produced the original survey register and proved a copy of the same as Ex.P50. She further stated that a team of doctors visited PHC on 28.07.2021 and recorded her statement, which is Ex.P45.
PW16 HC Arvin, OASI Branch, Hisar, DPO Hisar, deposed that he deposited a plastic jar along with sample seal and documents with MAMC Agroha. He also handed over parcels containing blood samples, envelopes, plastic jars with biological samples, documents, and clothes of the victim and accused Satbir, Kuldeep, and Manoj to Constable Sandeep on various dates, who deposited the same with FSL Madhuban and R/FSL Hisar, submitting receipts thereof to him. He confirmed that all case property remained intact and untampered during his custody.
PW17 Constable Sandeep, deposed that the case property of the present case was handed over to him for deposition with FSL Madhuban and R/FSL Hisar.
PW18 SPO Sushila, remained associated with IO/ PSI Gurmaninder Singh, during the investigation in this case.
PW19 ASI Surjeet Singh, Nail Reader to DSP Abhimanyu, deposed and proved the investigation conducted by DSP Abhimanyu, including various documents prepared by him during the investigation.
PW20 Sumandeep Kaur, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), RFSL Hisar, proved her reports Ex.PX and Ex.PY.
KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 7 PW21 Dr. Surjeet Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (DNA), FSL Madhuban, prepared the DNA report, as Ex.PZ.
PW22 ASI Sunita, deposed that on 30.07.2021, she recorded the statement of victim Ex.P1, in the presence of legal-aid counsel, Ms. Anurag Bhardwaj, Advocate. She further deposed that the victim was taken to MAMC, Agroha, for medical examination. The doctor handed over two blood vials, one plastic jar, one parcel of the victim's cloth, and one envelope. All parcels were taken into police possession.
PW23 PSI Gurmaninder, SHO Uklana, deposed regarding various investigation proceedings conducted by him in the present case.
PW24 Dr. Rakesh Sharma, CMO, MAMC Agroha, medico- legally examined accused Satbir and prepared the MLR. He further deposed that he took a blood sample for blood grouping and examined the case property, i.e. (i) head hair, (ii) pubic hair, (iii) coronal sulcus swab, (iv) urethral swab, (v) swab from prepuce, and (vi) swab from shaft of penis.
PW25 DSP Abhimanyu Lohan, Gurugram, the investigating officer, deposed regarding various investigation proceedings conducted by him in the present case.
PW26 Mohit, Receptionist at Hotel Heritage, Hisar, deposed that he was working as a receptionist at Hotel Diamond, Katla Ramlila Ground, Hisar. On 05.08.2021, he handed over a photocopy of the hotel's visitor register to the police as Ex.P78.
PW27 Dr. Sunil Aggarwal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sirsa, conducted the postmortem examination of a female fetus and prepared his report as Ex.P82.
KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 8
5. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which, all incriminating evidence was put to them, which they denied and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the accused.
6. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial Court found the same to be woefully insufficient to convict the accused who were accordingly acquitted of the offences for which they had been charge- sheeted, vide impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025.
7. Aggrieved of the said decision, present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging acquittal of the accused/ respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant opened up his arguments with the contentions that the trial Court erred in holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix was unreliable due to alleged inconsistencies, ignoring the settled law that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence. The minor inconsistencies or improvements are natural and do not discredit the core prosecution case. He further contended that the trial Court has erred in treating the delay in the lodging of the FIR as a major infirmity. It is the settled law that in cases of sexual offences, delay per se is not fatal and stands adequately explained by factors such as social stigma, fear, family honour and threats by the accused. He urged that in a tradition bound society, such delays are a normal phenomenon and do not cast doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case, the prosecutrix consistently spoke about fear of her own safety and that of her brother and about social stigma and family reaction, which factors are acknowledged as acceptable explanations for delay. He argued that the judgment also suffers from a caste blind approach ignoring the KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 9 intersectional vulnerability of a Scheduled Caste, woman. The accused, who belong to a socially dominant caste taking advantage of her vulnerable social position repeatedly subjected her to sexual exploitation. He submitted that the trial Court wrongly disbelieved the consistent, cogent and natural testimony of the prosecutrix regarding her pregnancy and the termination thereof, at the instance of accused Satbir. The evidence on record clearly establishes that pursuant to repeated sexual assault committed by the accused, the prosecutrix conceived and then her pregnancy was illegally got terminated at behest of accused Satbir, who gave her some tablets to get rid of her pregnancy. He thus prayed that this appeal be accepted, judgment dated 13.10.2025 be set aside and accused be convicted for the offence as charged with and be punished accordingly.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and having perused the impugned judgment as well as other relevant record, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution in the instant matter was unable to prove its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
11. Case of the prosecution primarily hinges on the testimony of the prosecutrix, who has been examined as PW1. It is trite law that conviction can be recorded solely on the statement of the prosecutrix, if her statement is unblemished, unwavering, consistent and is free of concoction, to put it precisely if she is a 'sterling witness'. It will be gainful to refer to some judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this context.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133 has held that the accused must be protected against the possibility of false implication. It has been further held that in so far as the allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence of KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 10 prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should without exception be taken as the gospel truth. It was held:
"10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspect and should be believed, the more so as her statements has to be evaluated at 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 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.
11. 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".
13. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep alias Deepu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 21 as under:
"15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 11 what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, 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."
KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 12
14. Similarly, in Tameezuddln alias Tammu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, it has been held that though evidence of prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. It has been held as follows:
"9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belles logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that story is indeed improbable."
15. Now adverting to the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix is now to be analysed in order to determine that if she passes the test of a sterling witness.
16. The prosecutrix made four separate statements at different stages of the proceedings (i) her application Ex.P1, (ii) her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ex.P2, (iii) her own handwritten application furnished to the team of doctors, Ex.P3, and (iv) her testimony before trial Court as PW1. Trial Court has rightly observed that a careful and comparative reading of these statements reveals that the prosecutrix has improvised, altered, and reshaped her version at every successive stage and narrative in her statements is not only inconsistent but also mutually irreconcilable.
17. While appearing as PW1, the prosecutrix alleged that accused Satbir had raped her in the fields when she had gone there with her mother, but no such allegation finds mention in her application Ex.P1 and KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 13 her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2. She alleged that the accused committed rape upon her in March 2020, but while appearing as PW1 she gave the date of this alleged occurrence as 2021. In Ex.P3, she alleged that she was raped multiple times by Satbir in his fields, though these allegations are missing elsewhere. In Ex.P1 and Ex.P3, she named only accused Satbir and did not name co-accused Manoj and Kuldeep, whereas in Ex.P2 and while appearing as PW1, she named Manoj and Kuldeep as well, when she stated that Manoj raped her in his house and accused Satbir also raped her at Manoj's house; her aforesaid version is missing in Ex.P1, Ex.P2, and Ex.P3. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P2, she stated that when she apprised the accused of her pregnancy he disregarded it, while her this version is missing in her all other statements. In Ex.P3, she stated that she remained silent on account of "social stigma," whereas in Ex.P1 she attributed her silence to threats by Satbir to kill her if she would disclose the facts to anyone. Contrary to it in Ex.P2 and as PW1, she alleged that accused threatened to kill her brother in case she would disclose to anyone.
18. Trial Court has rightly observed that a scrupulous and holistic reading of all four statements unequivocally demonstrates that the prosecutrix had projected divergent and inconsistent versions at every stage and these contradictions strike at the root of material particulars and such persistent incongruities corrode her credibility and incapacitate the Court from accepting her testimony as that of a sterling witness.
19. From the evidence on record, it also emerges that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix are omnibus and generalized in character. She did not disclose dates, times, or places of the incidents, when KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 14 accused Satbir allegedly subjected her to sexual abuse over a span of two years. As already observed, even the details provided are contradictory inter-se. As per Ex.P2, she alleged in rape March 2020, whereas in her deposition as PW1 she gave the said date as 2021. It amounts to another infirmity which further weakens the case of the prosecution.
20. The prosecutrix alleged that accused Satbir raped her in his fields two years prior and continued to exploit her for two years. She further stated that on 01.03.2021, Satbir took her to Diamond Star Hotel, Hisar, and committed rape upon her thrice and subsequently Kuldeep also joined in and raped her. Regarding accused Manoj, she alleged that about 1 ½ years ago, when she visited his house to perform household chores, Manoj raped her there and Satbir also joined at Manoj's house, but again no specific date or time of the alleged occurrence had been disclosed. Trial Court has rightly observed that these allegations appear improbable and implausible.
21. Though she allegated Satbir of raping her when she went to fields accompanied by her mother, but strangely she did not disclose the incident to her mother even after returning home. Trial Court has rightly pointed out that it remains unexplained that why despite the alleged acts of repeated rape in the fields, she continued to accompany her mother there instead of refusing to go there. As per the prosecution story there was no previous acquaintance or communication by the prosecutrix with accused Satbir before 01.03.2021, then again it has not been explained that how she had encountered him outside Diamond Star Hotel. Admittedly, she did not raise any alarm while at the hotel. Rather she gave improbable version while stating that she met no one in the hotel. Though the prosecutrix alleged that she was silenced on the pretext of making viral her incriminating video, yet KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 15 no such video had been recovered or brought on record. Though she alleged to had been raped at the house of Manoj, when she went there to perform the house hold chores, but no evidence had been produced on record to prove that she was ever employed in the house of Manoj as domestic help.
22. As per the prosecution version, she became pregnant due to sexual exploitation at the hands of accused Satbir and when she apprised him regarding her pregnancy, he gave her some tablets. She consumed one tablet on 21.07.2021 and the remaining tablets on 22.07.2021 and afterwords she experienced acute abdominal pain, vomiting, loose motions and difficulty in urination. So, accompanied by her maternal aunt Angrejo, she proceeded to PHC Kajla where Dr. Rubi inserted a urinary catheter and Staff Nurse Anju gave her injection. While she continued to endure severe abdominal pain, she proceeded to the toilet, where her foetus allegedly got aborted and flushed away and thereafter she along with her maternal aunt (Mausi) returned back home.
23. No oral or medical evidence has been proved on record regarding pregnancy of the prosecutrix. Neither Angrejo the maternal aunt of the prosecutrix had been examined, who allegedly accompanied her to PHC Kajla nor any other family member of prosecutrix was examined in this context. No medical record has been produced on record to substantiate that she was pregnant. Trial Court has rightly pointed out that even both the nurses examined by the prosecution remained silent on the aspect of pregnancy of the prosecutrix. In order to prove her visit to PHC Kajla, the prosecution has relied upon OPD register (Ex.P32), but in the absence of any identification record of the victim same cannot be connected with the prosecutrix. PW9 Dr. Sanjeev admitted in his testimony that from the mere KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 16 OPD entry, it cannot be ascertained that whether the victim indeed visited the hospital on that day, which again demolishes the prosecution story. Even if, it is presumed that prosecutrix along with her aunt had visited PHC Kajla, but even then it has not been conclusively proved that she had an abortion there. As per the prosecutrix, she expelled a foetus while urinating in the hospital's toilet and it got flushed away. When she did not apprise any staff member or attendant of the hospital regarding the same, then it raises doubt about the veracity of her statement. Though PW12 Dr. Prabhu Dayal, stated that as per the hospital record, it was inferred, that the victim was the only lady admitted with pregnancy related complaints and vaginal bleeding, leading them to conclude her as the biological mother of the foetus. In the absence of any medical record, substantiating her admission with such complaints, it is not proved. Moreover, the foetus had been recovered on 22.07.2021, while cleaning the block toilet and during the interregnum between 22.07.2021 and 27.07.2021 the said toilet which was a public convenience was accessible to various persons. So, the said foetus cannot be connected with the prosecutrix and to the accused. As per the FSL report Ex.PX, no DNA profiling was feasible due to degradation of the foetal material. Thus, narrative advanced by the prosecutrix is not corroborated by any credible evidence.
24. As per the prosecutrix accused Satbir had raped her two years prior and thereafter repeatedly assaulted her over span of two years. Accused Manoj allegedly committed rape upon her about 1 ½ years earlier at his residence, and accused Kuldeep allegedly raped her on 01.03.2021 at Diamond Star Hotel. It remained unexplained that why no immediate complaint was filed by the victim. Trial Court has rightly observed that even KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 17 the FIR was registered only after the hospital authorities compelled her to disclose the matter and this unexplained delay in setting the criminal law in motion constitutes a dent in the prosecution story. Trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon Prakash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 40, where it was observed that when the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is relied upon, it becomes hazardous to convict the accused, particularly when the prosecutrix waited for over a year to lodge the complaint of rape. The reasons furnished by the prosecutrix to explain the said delay appear to be contrary, at one instance she stated that she kept mum due to threats to her brother's life; in her statement Ex.P3, she stated that social stigma prevented her from disclosing the same. While in Ex.P1, she attributed her silence solely to threats given by the accused. Trial Court has rightly observed that after each incident whether in the fields or in the hotel she had ample opportunity to report the matter to authorities, yet she chose not to avail herself of such recourse and the unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR constitutes yet another serious infirmity in the prosecution's case.
25. Trial Court has further rightly observed that the conduct of the prosecutrix unequivocally points towards a consensual relationship rather than a forced one. When after the first incident which occurred two years back she never disclosed the matter to any of her family members, though there was no imminent or continuing threat preventing her from doing so; she continued to accompany her mother to the fields, though she alleged that the first alleged assault took place there; she raised no alarm or hue and cry after she was raped at house of accused Manoj; she made no attempt to lodge an FIR and did not protest or resisted when accused Satbir KOMAL 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 18 allegedly took her to the Diamond Star Hotel; there were no external or internal injuries on her person to support the allegation of the forcible intercourse. From all the aforesaid circumstances, it could be easily inferred that she was willing and consenting participant in the alleged acts.
26. In the facts and circumstances of the case the sole version of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as the gospel truth on its face value in the absence of any supporting evidence, as she does not appear to be a sterling witness. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
27. The trial Court has rightly reached at the conclusion that the entire evidence of the prosecution since does not hold strength and same is unworthy of credence and is insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.
28. It is the settled law that an order of acquittal is not to be interfered with lightly because presumption of innocence of the accused are 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 reported as 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 KOMAL presumption of innocence. Interference in a 2026.03.17 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRA-AD-27-2026 (O&M) 19 routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
29. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned decision dated 13.10.2025 which calls for interference.
30. In view of the above, the appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed with impugned judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by learned trial Court being upheld.
31. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR) (ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE JUDGE
17.03.2026.
Komal
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No
Whether reportable? : Yes/ No
KOMAL
2026.03.17 16:42
I attest to the accuracy
of this document