Back
2025 Supreme(Chh) 238
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Sushant Nayak, S/o. Late Madanlal Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer – Respondent
CRA No. 760 of 2019
Decided On : 17-11-2025
For the Appellant :Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
Consent obtained under fear of injury is invalid; however, evidence must substantiate that such fear coerced the individual, which was not proven in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(n) - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 - Consent in sexual offences - Court re-examines validity of consent, determining non-consent under ‘fear of injury’ as per Section 90 of IPC - Evidence did not substantiate claims of coercion or fear; relationship characterized as consensual. (Paras 9-25)
(B) Evidentiary standards in sexual crime cases - Role of 'sterling witness' and credibility of testimony - Court emphasizes totality of circumstances to ascertain consent, referring to established legal principles. (Paras 27-29)
Facts of the case:
Appellant convicted for multiple sexual assaults on the victim, resulting in life imprisonment and fines. The victim's testimony alleged coercion due to threats of exposure, but inconsistencies raised doubt about her claims.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish that the victim's consent was vitiated by coercion, indicating a consensual relationship instead.
Issues: The legal question of whether the victim's alleged consent was invalid due to fear, as well as the credibility of her testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that substantial evidence did not confirm coercion; the victim's relationship with the appellant indicated voluntary consent contrary to the trial Court’s findings.
Result: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and charges against the appellant (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. discussion on consent and definitions under ipc (Para 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments of appellant's and respondent's counsel (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evaluation of failure to prove fear-induced consent (Para 17 , 25 , 29) |
| 5. analysis of victim's consent in context of fear of injury (Para 19 , 21 , 24) |
| 6. outcome of appeal and acquittal of the appellant (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking the criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the sole appellant herein has preferred this appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment & order dated 26-4-2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No.84/2017, by which he has been convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC & 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the IT Act’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for four years & fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months, respectively, with a direction that both the sentences will run concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that approximately one year prior to 20-6-2017, the appellant committed multiple sexual assaults against the major victim (PW-3) in his house and at other places and threatened to viral her objectionable photographs, and thereby committed the offence. Written report was lodged by the victim (PW-3) vide Ex.P-3. Dehati FIR was lodged at the instance of the victim vide Ex.P-4 and regular FIR was registered vide Ex.P-22. A mobile phone having objectionable content was seized from the victim vide seizure memo Ex.P-6. Pen-drive and CD containing objectionable photographs were seized vide Ex.P-9. MLC of the victim (PW-3) was conducted by Dr. Kiran Sonkar (PW-5) vide Ex.P- 10 who opined that no definite opinion about the sexual intercourse can be given. Objectionable contents were viewed and panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-13. A mobile phone containing objectionable photographs was seized at the instance of the accused/appellant vide Ex.P-14. Crime details form Ex.P-24 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and spot map Ex.P-8 was prepared by the Patwari.
3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused/appellant was charge- sheeted for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 384 of the IPC & 67 of the IT Act and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Korba from where the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Korba received the case on transfer for trial.
4. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document in support of its case.
5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC primarily relying upon the evidence of the victim (PW-3) that the accused had repeatedly committed forceful sexual intercourse upon her without her consent, invoking Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’) to presume that the victim did not consent to the sexual intercourse. The trial Court also invoked Section 90 of the IPC holding that the evidence available on record indicated that the appellant obtained the consent of the victim under fear of injury. On the aforesaid basis, the trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC & 67 of the IT
