1. Appeal against acquittal in rape case based on false promise of marriage and blackmail. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
ABDUL MOIN, PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Ram Saran Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 63 of 2026
Decided On : 12-05-2026
Important Points
The court held that while a prosecutrix's testimony is given weight, it must be of 'sterling quality' and consistent. If circumstantial evidence suggests consent and medical reports are inconclusive, an acquittal based on the lack of resistance and inconsistent testimony will not be disturbed.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 372 - Evidence of prosecutrix in rape cases - Generally, a finding of guilt can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, but this cannot be mechanically applied to every case. The evidence must be reliable and not contradicted by material on record that suggests consent or indicates the incident was improbable. (Paras 15, 21)
(B) Consensual Sex vs. Rape - Distinction between rape and consensual sex is crucial; a breach of promise to marry does not necessarily amount to a misconception of fact unless it is proved that the accused had mala fide intentions and no intention to keep the promise from the inception. (Para 28)
(C) "Sterling Witness" - To rely on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix without corroboration, the witness must be of "sterling quality," meaning the version must be unassailable, consistent from the initial statement to the court testimony, and correlate with supporting medical and scientific evidence. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the judgment of acquittal in a case where the prosecutrix alleged she was raped on multiple occasions between 2018 and 2022 under the false pretext of marriage and through blackmail using obscene photographs and videos. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix, the complainant, and hotel records. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecutrix had booked the hotel rooms herself and had received money in her account from the accused, which strongly indicated consent. There was no evidence of resistance, struggle, or alarm raised by the prosecutrix during the alleged incidents. Medical evidence was inconclusive as no external injuries were found and the medical expert could not give a definite opinion on the commission of rape. The testimony of the prosecutrix was found to be inconsistent and failed the test of being a "sterling witness."
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and whether the evidence established the commission of offenses under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the conduct of the prosecutrix, such as booking hotel rooms and accepting money, points towards a consensual relationship, and where the testimony lacks the consistency and quality of a "sterling witness," the findings of the trial court resulting in acquittal are logical and probable and should not be interfered with.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
(B) Consensual Sex vs. Rape - Distinction between rape and consensual sex is crucial; a breach of promise to marry does not necessarily amount to a misconception of fact unless it is proved that the accused had mala fide intentions and no intention to keep the promise from the inception. (Para 28)
(C) "Sterling Witness" - To rely on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix without corroboration, the witness must be of "sterling quality," meaning the version must be unassailable, consistent from the initial statement to the court testimony, and correlate with supporting medical and scientific evidence. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the judgment of acquittal in a case where the prosecutrix alleged she was raped on multiple occasions between 2018 and 2022 under the false pretext of marriage and through blackmail using obscene photographs and videos. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix, the complainant, and hotel records. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecutrix had booked the hotel rooms herself and had received money in her account from the accused, which strongly indicated consent. There was no evidence of resistance, struggle, or alarm raised by the prosecutrix during the alleged incidents. Medical evidence was inconclusive as no external injuries were found and the medical expert could not give a definite opinion on the commission of rape. The testimony of the prosecutrix was found to be inconsistent and failed the test of being a "sterling witness."
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and whether the evidence established the commission of offenses under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the conduct of the prosecutrix, such as booking hotel rooms and accepting money, points towards a consensual relationship, and where the testimony lacks the consistency and quality of a "sterling witness," the findings of the trial court resulting in acquittal are logical and probable and should not be interfered with.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shamshad Ahmad Khan
For the Appellant : Shamshad Ahmad Khan
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argues trial court ignored evidence; respondent contends relationship was consensual with no force. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Prosecutrix's testimony not credible; she booked rooms, received money, and made no resistance. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 33 , 36 )
4. Uncorroborated evidence of prosecutrix can be accepted only if it is of sterling quality and inspires confidence. (Para 15 , 21 , 25 , 28 , 32 )
5. Appeal dismissed; trial court's acquittal affirmed as based on a probable and logical view. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 )
6. When can the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim be accepted?
Only when it is of sterling quality, consistent, inspires confidence, and withstands cross-examination without doubt. (Para 15 , 21 , 28 , 32 , 33 )
7. What distinguishes rape from consensual sex in a promise-to-marry case?
The accused must have had no intention to marry from the outset; mere breach of promise does not amount to rape. (Para 28 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of lack of resistance or complaint by the victim?
Absence of resistance, failure to seek help, or making hotel bookings herself indicates consent, not force. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shamshad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.
2. The present appeal under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein-after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”)/413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein-after referred to as BNSS, 2023) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the court of Additional Session Judge, F.T.C. Court-I, Lucknow, in Sessions Trial No. 1184 of 2022, State of U.P. Vs. Aryan Mishra , arising out of Case Crime No. 241 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow, thereby acquitting the opposite party No.2 from the charges under Sections 376, 506 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant’s daughter was befriended by a fellow student, namely, Aryan Mishra, who committed rape on her on several occasions under the false pretext of marriage. In September 2018, the accused invited the victim on the birthday party at a rented house of Aryan’s friend, namely, Saurabh, where Aryan Mishra forcibly established physical relations with her and recorded obscene photographs and videos of the victim, which he later on used to blackmail and threaten her to viral the same via social media. These sexual assaults continued by the accused-Aryan Mishra at various locations between the year 2020 to 2022, in Risova Club on 7th of January, 2020, a hotel in Hazratganj on 16th of January, 2021, the Silver Hotel near Medanta Hospital in October and November of 2021 and the R. K. Grand Hotel on 10th of February, 2022. Throughout this period, the accused repeatedly established physical relations with the victim and in the FIR it is mentioned that the victim could not disclose the incident to any one due to chastity and social stigma, but thereafter after she eventually informed the incident to complainant who had filed a written Teharir at Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow. On the basis of written Teharir, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred as ‘FIR’ in short) against the accused-Aryan Mishra was lodged under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, visited the places of occurrence, prepared a site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Following the investigation, a chargesheet against the accused-Aryan Mishra was submitted under Sections 506 and 376 of the IPC.
5. After taking cognizance, in compliance of the provisions under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Session from where it is made over to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Lucknow for disposal according to law.
6. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 506, 376 of IPC and read over and explained to him, the accused denied them and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced the ocular evidences of victim PW-1, Ram Saran Tripathi PW-2, the complainant, Dr. Smita Rai PW-3, Shiv Prakash Soni PW-4, Ramakant PW-5, SI Anil Kumar Singh PW-6 and SI Safatullah PW-7.
8. The prosecution has adduced the documentary evidences which are statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Exhibit Ka-1, teharir Exhibit Ka-2, medico legal and supplementary report Exhibit Ka-3, photocopy of hotel entry register Exhibit Ka-4, chargesheet Exhibit Ka-5, Chik FIR Exhibit Ka-6, copy of GD entry Exhibit Ka-7 and site plan Exhibit ka-8.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused-Aryan Mishra under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which accused denied all the evidences and attending circumstances emerged out in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
10. At the stage of defence evidence, the acccused-Aryan Mishra himself was examined as DW-1, Amit Mishra as DW-2, Komal Mishra as DW-3, Shraddha Prakash as DW-
