Unexplained Delay Of 2 Months In Filing FIR, Victim's Testimony Not Truthful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal In Rape Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the acquittal in a rape case observing that the statement of the alleged victim was not reliable and there was an unexplained delay of 2 months in registration of the FIR.

The Court noted that prosecutrix during cross examination also stated that the accused was holding the pistol in one hand and the mobile phone in other hand and caught hold of her from behind. "It is entirely impossible that a person would hold a pistol in one hand, mobile in another and caught hold her from behind and indulged in sexual act and also to film it. Her evasive replies further creates doubts in her testimony," the Court said.

Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Kumari said, "On careful scrutiny of testimonies of prosecutrix...we are of view that the evidence led by the prosecution before the learned trial Court is not sufficient to prove the guilt against the accused. Had she been allegedly raped by accused, she would have approached the police then and there and would have got herself medically examined and would have informed her husband when he visits home, would have expelled accused from work, would have cut off her relationship with him, would not have allowed him to take her children to provide medical care."

The bench said, there is delay of two months in registration of FIR which is un-explained. She was allegedly sexuall assault in February 2022 whereas her husband remained with her twice or thrice from December 2021 to April 2022, this also negates the allegations of sexual assault/rape. Wife of accused had already moved application against the prosecutrix and accused. 

It opined that the learned trial Court rightly held that the relationship of prosecutrix with the accused was consensus and there is no other view possible except the view in favour of innocence of the accused and no interference in the judgment of learned trial Court is called for.

 Speaking for the bench Justice Kumari said for the purpose of conviction of the accused for the offence of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the evidence has to be of sterling quality, unassailable, highly credible and inherently truthful, which can be accepted at its face value without hesitation and in the absence of any corroboration.

She failed to withstand strenuous cross-examination, which creates doubt in her testimony. Her evasive replies about the complaint moved by wife of the accused against accused and her failure to inform about the occurrence to her husband when he visits her from February 2022 to April 2022 creates doubts in her testimony, on the other hand proved that her statement is not truthful and consistent, the Court added.

The FIR was lodged on complaint made by an army officer that her wife is being harassed by the accused-labourer who was working in a PG owned by them. In the testimony the prosecutrix, she disclosed that about two months ago, ants came over her body and she went to a room to change her clothes, where accused followed her and raped her. He threatened that if she disclosed the occurrence to anyone, he would kill her family. She got scared and did not disclose the occurrence to anyone, she added.

After hearing Additional Public Prosecutor and defence counsel and perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that accused is falsely implicated. Prosecution failed to prove the charged offences against the accused. Point for determination was decided against the prosecution and accused was acquitted of charges.

Examining the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, the Court found various improvements and evasive response.

Reliance was placed on  Murugesan v. State, [(2012) 10 SCC 383: (AIR 2013 SC 274)] to underscore that only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of conviction.

In the light of the above, the Court opined that "the learned trial Court committed no illegality in acquitting the accused."

Mr. P.K.S Phoolka, Advocate for for the appellant/prosecutrix/complainant.

Respondent No.1 produced in custody with counsel Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate

Mr. J.P.S. Brar, Advocate 

Ms. Sandisha, AAG Punjab.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 403