Improbable Story & Love Letters Weaken Rape Allegation; Acquittal Upheld When Two Views Possible: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-06

HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case, Cites 'Improbable' Story and 'Love Letters' from Prosecutrix

Shimla, HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape, criminal intimidation, and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, finding the prosecutrix's testimony to be unreliable and riddled with contradictions. A division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja ruled that the trial court's decision to acquit was a "possible view" based on the evidence, which included numerous "love letters" written by the prosecutrix to the accused.

The court emphasized the established legal principle that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal merely because a different view is possible, especially when the original verdict is not perverse or palpably wrong.

Background of the Case

The State of Himachal Pradesh had appealed against a 2014 judgment from the Special Judge, Sirmaur, which acquitted Mam Raj of all charges. The prosecution's case was based on the complaint of a woman (prosecutrix) who alleged that Mam Raj had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her on three separate occasions in 2011. She also claimed he had threatened her life, used caste-based slurs to humiliate her and her family, and blackmailed her with letters.

Following an investigation, charges were framed against Mam Raj under Sections 376 (rape), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 3(i)(xii) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court, after examining eleven prosecution witnesses, found the evidence insufficient and acquitted him.

Arguments Before the High Court

• For the State (Appellant): The Senior Additional Advocate General argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. It was contended that the judgment was based on "surmises and conjectures" and should be set aside.

• For the Accused (Respondent): The defense counsel maintained that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and resulted from a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. They argued that the acquittal required no interference.

Court's Legal Analysis: Scrutinizing the Evidence

The High Court began its analysis by reiterating the high threshold for interfering in an acquittal. It cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka , which establish that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. Interference is only justified if the trial court's findings are "palpably wrong" or would lead to a "grave injustice."

Applying these principles, the bench scrutinized the prosecutrix's testimony and found it "not confidence inspiring."

"After close scrutiny of her testimony, it can be said that on major aspects, she was deliberately ambiguous and kept on changing her stand," the Court observed.

The judgment highlighted several key inconsistencies that weakened the prosecution's case: 1. Vague Allegations: The prosecutrix could not specify the dates, month, or even the year of the alleged rapes and offered no explanation for the significant delay in filing a complaint. 2. The "Love Letters": The court examined 37 letters (Exhibits P4 to P40) written by the prosecutrix to the accused. It concluded that these were not written under duress, as alleged, but were a "pure reflection of feelings of the prosecutrix towards the accused." This evidence, the court noted, supported the defense's claim that the prosecutrix was obsessed with the accused and filed a false case after their relationship became public and was opposed by her family. 3. Contradictory Conduct: A crucial contradiction emerged when the prosecutrix admitted in her cross-examination that her family had hired the accused and his brother to cook for her brother’s wedding. This event occurred after the alleged rapes and threats, leading the court to question the credibility of her claims. The bench remarked, "the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed that even after commission of the alleged sexual assault by the accused upon the prosecutrix, her family would invite the accused and his brother to prepare the meal." 4. Lack of Evidence for SC/ST Act Charges: Regarding the allegations of caste-based remarks, the court found the evidence insufficient. The prosecutrix made only general statements, and the witnesses brought to corroborate her claims were found to be "interested witnesses" involved in a property dispute with the accused's family. Their testimony was therefore deemed unreliable without independent corroboration.

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed the state's appeal. The bench held that the trial court's decision was not just a possible view, but the "only possible view" based on the evidence presented.

"In view of the entire evidence on record, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, it has become clear that there is nothing on record, which could, even remotely, establish the guilt of the accused beyond the scope of reasonable doubt," the judgment stated.

The court discharged the accused's bail bonds, bringing the decade-long legal battle to a close and reaffirming the stringent standards of proof required to overturn a judgment of acquittal in the Indian criminal justice system.