Statutory Presumption U/S 114A Of Evidence Act Doesn’t Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Acquits Rape Accused

​The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed, “Notwithstanding this shift in defence however, it is well settled that the primary burden remains on the prosecution to establish the foundational facts of the case, which in the present instance, are shrouded in doubt. While the Court is cognizant of the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be held to be a substitute for the requirement of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

Advocate K Singhal appeared for the Appellant, while APP Pradeep Gahalot appeared for the Respondent, along with Advocate Rohan J Alva as Amicus Curiae.

Factual Background

An appeal was filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court arising out of the FIR registered under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-1), who testified that her mother-in-law pressured her into moving to the appellant’s quarters after his release on bail for a prior offence. She stated that the appellant confined her in a temporary structure from November 2013 to January 2014, where he repeatedly raped her and threatened her children. She eventually escaped to her uncle’s house, discovered she was pregnant, and filed a court complaint after the police initially declined to act. Police officials and medical records supported the investigative framework of the case.

During cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted to appearing in photographs with the appellant in Haridwar but denied going there voluntarily. Significant contradictions arose when her aunt (PW-5) testified that the prosecutrix stayed with her for four months after the alleged escape, but never mentioned the rape or confinement. The appellant denied all allegations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claiming he was falsely implicated and that any relationship was consensual, though he did not present any defence evidence.

Contention of the Parties

The Appellant argued that the Prosecutrix lacked credibility and pointed to her acquittal of the Appellant in a previous, similar case. He highlighted that she previously filed an affidavit admitting their relations were consensual and claimed she acted under family pressure. Counsel further noted that while she alleged a two-month confinement and frequent beatings, she could not provide specific details of the location, and her claims lacked support from medical or forensic evidence.

In response, the State and the Amicus Curiae opposed these arguments and emphasized the legal presumption against consent under Section 114A of the Evidence Act. The Amicus Curiae pointed out that the appellant offered conflicting defences by denying the incident entirely in his official statement while suggesting a consensual relationship during cross-examination. They maintained that the allegations remained serious despite the defence's focus on the prosecutrix's past conduct and the photographic evidence.

Observations of the Court

The Court noted, “A perusal of the record reveals a fundamental contradiction that strikes at the root of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix has alleged that she was kept in illegal confinement in a jhuggi at Shakur Basti for a continuous period from 13.11.2013 to 14.01.2014. This version is, however, belied by the photographic evidence on record. These photographs, the presence of the prosecutrix in which has been admitted by her, bear the date 16.11.2013 and indicate her presence in Haridwar during the very period she claims to have been confined. It is difficult to reconcile the allegation of forced captivity with the undisputed fact of her travel to and presence in another city.”

The Court also observed, “The defence put forth by the appellant requires some scrutiny in light of the contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae representing the victim that the appellant has raised two separate defences. While the appellant in his Section 313 statement has adopted a stand of complete denial, stating that nothing as alleged had happened, a case of consent has been sought to be established later on, as evidenced by the suggestions given to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination, as well as by the arguments agitated before this Court.”

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the benefit of the said doubt must be extended to the Appellant.

Accordingly, the Court acquitted the Appellant.

Cause Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:253]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates K. Singhal, Prasanna and Avantika Shankar

Respondent: APP Pradeep Gahalot

Amicus Curiae: Advocate Rohan J. Alva

Click here to read/download the Judgment