Introduction:

In the case State of H.P. v. Mam Raj, Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2015, decided on 29th August 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kureja dismissed the appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused, Mam Raj, who was initially charged under Sections 504, 506, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on three different occasions in 2011, threatened her with dire consequences including taking her life, and hurled caste-based insults at her family. However, the defense argued that the allegations were baseless, inconsistent, and contradicted by documentary evidence, particularly the love letters written by the prosecutrix to the accused, which showed voluntary affection rather than coercion. The High Court, after evaluating the evidence, upheld the acquittal, concluding that the victim’s testimony was unreliable due to multiple contradictions and the absence of corroborative proof, thereby emphasizing that while the testimony of a rape victim holds significant weight, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction when riddled with inconsistencies.

Arguments of the Appellant (State):

The State, represented by Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, argued that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused despite clear allegations of rape, criminal intimidation, and caste-based insults. The prosecution contended that in cases involving sexual assault, the statement of the victim is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused if it is credible and inspires confidence. It was emphasized that rape is an offence against the dignity of a woman, and expecting corroborative evidence in every case would lead to a miscarriage of justice, as such offences are often committed in secrecy where independent witnesses are unavailable. The prosecutrix had consistently maintained that the accused had forced himself upon her thrice in 2011 and thereafter threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incidents, which created fear in her mind and prevented her from reporting the matter promptly. Furthermore, the State submitted that the caste-based insults alleged by the prosecutrix were serious in nature, falling within the ambit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the trial court failed to give due weight to her testimony. The State contended that the existence of love letters should not automatically negate the possibility of coercion, as a victim of prolonged intimidation and threats might continue to maintain a relationship out of fear. Thus, the prosecution urged the Court to reverse the acquittal and convict the accused on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix.

Arguments of the Respondent (Accused):

On the other hand, the accused, represented by Ms. Upasana Thakur, Advocate, countered the allegations by pointing out that the testimony of the prosecutrix was full of contradictions and inconsistencies, making it unreliable for sustaining a conviction in a serious offence like rape. The defense emphasized that the prosecutrix, despite alleging that she had been raped thrice, failed to provide any specific dates, months, or circumstances under which the incidents allegedly took place. This lack of detail created serious doubts about the veracity of her claims. Additionally, the accused highlighted that the prosecutrix had written several love letters to him, which reflected her deep affection and willingness to be in a relationship, rather than showing any element of coercion, threat, or force. These letters, according to the defense, were genuine expressions of love and not a product of intimidation. It was argued that no evidence was produced to corroborate the allegations of threats or caste-based remarks, and even during her testimony, the prosecutrix kept changing her versions, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The defense maintained that criminal jurisprudence requires that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the inconsistencies and contradictions in the victim’s account, coupled with the absence of independent or corroborative evidence, justified the trial court’s decision to acquit. Therefore, the defense requested the High Court to uphold the acquittal and dismiss the appeal filed by the State.

Court’s Judgment:

After thoroughly examining the evidence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, agreeing with the trial court’s findings. The bench observed that although it is a well-established principle that in cases of sexual offences, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be given paramount importance and can even form the sole basis of conviction, such testimony must be credible, consistent, and free from contradictions. In this case, the Court noted that the prosecutrix’s allegations were inconsistent and contradictory to the record. She initially claimed that the accused had raped her thrice in 2011, but failed to provide specific dates, months, or contextual details. Moreover, during her testimony, she kept altering her statements, further eroding the reliability of her account. Most significantly, the Court found that the love letters written by the prosecutrix to the accused were clear indicators of a consensual relationship. These letters reflected genuine affection and were devoid of any suggestion of compulsion or coercion, thereby undermining the prosecution’s claim of forcible sexual intercourse. The Court also noted that there was no independent evidence to support the allegations of threats or caste-based insults. The absence of corroborative testimony or material evidence, coupled with the shifting stand of the prosecutrix, made it impossible to rely solely on her version. The Court held that while it is necessary to treat a rape victim’s testimony with seriousness, it cannot be accepted blindly when riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Upholding the principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, the bench concluded that the State had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the acquittal of Mam Raj was confirmed.