Medical Evidence Alone Without Accompanying Evidence Of Resistance Not Sufficient To Prove Forcible Intercourse: Bombay High Court

The High Court held that minor abrasions or redness observed during medical examination cannot, on their own, support a finding of forcible sexual intercourse unless accompanied by evidence indicating resistance, trauma, or compulsion.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by a Special Court under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code

A Bench comprising Justice Nivedita P. Mehta, while deciding the matter, observed: “The medical evidence, though showing signs of recent sexual activity and minor injuries, does not conclusively prove forcible intercourse. The medical officer did not depose that the injuries were necessarily caused due to non-consensual intercourse. Mere presence of abrasions or redness, without accompanying evidence of resistance or trauma, is not sufficient to conclusively prove the absence of consent.”

Advocate Amit M. Balpande appeared for the appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor S.S. Hulke represented the State.

Background

The appellant had been convicted by the trial court for the offence of rape and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.

On appeal, it was contended that the prosecution failed to prove the absence of consent and that the conviction rested primarily on medical evidence which, even if accepted in its entirety, did not conclusively establish the alleged offence.

The defence also questioned the reliability of documentary evidence concerning age and argued that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority. The State, however, supported the trial court’s findings, contending that the presence of injuries corroborated the charge of non-consensual intercourse.

Court’s Observation

The Bombay High Court examined the medical officer’s deposition and noted that while certain minor injuries and signs of recent sexual activity were recorded, there was no expert opinion indicating that they were the result of force.

The Bench analysed the deposition of the prosecutrix, the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the contents of the First Information Report. Finding material variations in her statements at different stages of the proceedings, the Court observed that “these material omissions and inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the credibility of the version presented by the victim.”

The Court observed that while the testimony of the prosecutrix alone can sustain a conviction, it must be free from discrepancies and supported by surrounding circumstances. However, in the present matter, the contradictions between her statements, her conduct during the relevant period, and the inconclusive medical evidence created a serious doubt about the prosecution’s version.

The Court further found that the evidence on record showed that the prosecutrix had stayed with the accused for several days and that she had not made any attempt to escape or seek help despite having multiple opportunities to do so. The absence of resistance or disapproval during this period, the Court held, “does not support the allegation of forcible sexual assault”.

The Court also noted that the lower court had placed reliance on the medical findings without analysing whether they established the absence of consent. The High Court observed that the reasoning of the trial court was unsustainable, as the evidence as a whole did not satisfy the standard of proof required for a conviction under Section 376 IPC.

Furthermore, while stating that it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Bench remarked that “the possibility of a consensual relationship between the appellant and the victim cannot be ruled out, especially considering their prior acquaintance, the victim's stay with the accused without protest, and the surrounding circumstances.”

In conclusion, Justice Mehta held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix, the unreliable proof of age, and the absence of medical evidence of force collectively rendered the prosecution’s case doubtful.

Conclusion

Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and ordered the appellant’s acquittal.

Cause Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:9663)

Appellant: Advocate Amit M. Balpande

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor S.S. Hulke

Click here to read/download Judgment