STATE OF GUJARAT V. VIRENDRASINH AJITSINH MAKWANA 2025:GUJHC:35141-DB:

DATE: 02/07/2025

COURT: High Court of Gujarat

BENCH: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas

FACTS:

The respondent in this case was prosecuted as the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2009 before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, for offences under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that in October 2008, the accused took a 20-year-old woman, a resident of his locality, to the terrace of the Mayka Institute of Millennium Complex market in Bharuch and forcibly raped her. It was further alleged that he stripped her clothes, recorded a nude video of her on his mobile phone, and threatened her with dire consequences, including making the video viral, if she disclosed the incident. The victim did not immediately inform anyone and lodged a police complaint only three months later, on 9 January 2009. Medical examination of the victim revealed a torn hymen but did not indicate any signs of forcible sexual intercourse. The accused denied the charges, claiming a consensual relationship and produced photographs to support his defense of an ongoing love affair.

During trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and presented 23 exhibits. The defense argued that the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual and not forced, as claimed. Notably, inconsistencies appeared in the victim's testimony, especially regarding whether she was forcibly taken to the terrace. While she initially claimed she was taken there against her will, she later admitted during cross-examination that the accused had not taken her there forcibly, which cast doubt on her earlier statements. The location of the alleged incident, being a public place opposite a college and occurring during daytime, further weakened the prosecution's case. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused of all charges. Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the State of Gujarat filed an appeal before the High Court, challenging the legality and correctness of the trial court’s decision.

ISSUES:

The central issues in this case were whether the accused had committed the offence of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and whether he was guilty of violating Section 67 of the Information Technology Act by recording and threatening to circulate a nude video of the victim. A related issue concerned whether the delay of three months in lodging the FIR and the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment of acquittal. It found that no offence of rape, criminal intimidation, or violation of the IT Act had been established. Consequently, the acquittal of the accused was affirmed, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court’s decision.

The court carefully evaluated the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, particularly her contradictory statements regarding whether the accused forcibly took her to the terrace. While she initially claimed in her examination-in-chief that she was taken by force, she later contradicted this in her cross-examination by admitting that the accused did not forcibly take her. This inconsistency, coupled with the fact that the alleged incident occurred in a public place during daytime hours, led the court to conclude that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the accused. Moreover, medical evidence showed no signs of physical injury or forcible sexual intercourse, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court also noted that despite the serious nature of the allegations, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of three months, which cast additional doubt on the credibility of the victim’s account.

The court also gave significant weight to the photographs produced by the accused, which clearly showed an intimate relationship between him and the victim. These images established that the two were involved in a consensual relationship, and any sexual activity that occurred was with mutual consent. Given that the video allegedly recorded by the accused was never recovered or presented in evidence, the charge under Section 67 of the IT Act could not be sustained. On a cumulative appreciation of the oral, documentary, and medical evidence, the court concluded that the allegations were false and the case appeared to be motivated by reasons best known to the victim. Thus, the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was found to be legally sound and based on a fair appraisal of the evidence.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the critical role of consistent testimony, corroborative medical evidence, and contextual credibility in sexual offence prosecutions. The High Court’s affirmation of the acquittal emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, particularly when there is a significant delay in filing the FIR without adequate explanation. The court found that the victim's shifting narrative, specifically her contradiction on whether the accused forcibly took her to the terrace, raised doubts about the truthfulness of her account. Furthermore, the alleged incident occurred in broad daylight at a public location, which, coupled with the absence of physical injuries or signs of resistance, weakened the prosecution's version. The medical evidence, while noting a torn hymen, did not suggest any indicators of forced sexual intercourse, thereby failing to substantiate the core allegation.

Additionally, the court placed considerable weight on the photographic evidence provided by the defense, which illustrated a prior consensual romantic relationship between the accused and the victim. This supported the defense’s claim that any sexual activity was consensual. The absence of the alleged video, which formed the basis of the charge under Section 67 of the IT Act, further undermined the prosecution’s case. The judgment reflects a balanced approach by the judiciary, where legal standards of proof and due process were prioritized over mere allegations, particularly in sensitive cases. Ultimately, the court's reasoning reinforced that conviction in criminal cases must rest on clear, consistent, and reliable evidence, and when such standards are not met, an acquittal is not only justified but necessary to uphold justice.