Safiya Malik

The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a rape case charge-sheet and the trial court’s cognizance order, directing that the trial proceed in accordance with law. The appeal arose from allegations by the survivor that the accused, a pharmacist, administered a sedative during treatment and raped her, resulting in pregnancy. While rejecting reliance on affidavits not forming part of the investigation record, the Court castigated the appellant’s counsel for attempting to depict the survivor as a “woman of easy virtue” through scandalous pleadings, noting that such attacks on character violate a woman’s dignity and privacy under Article 21, and warning the advocate to show due care and restraint in submissions.

The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging a cognizance order and a charge-sheet arising from an FIR alleging rape and an offence under the SC/ST Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Also Read:Difficult To Accept Married Woman Was Induced Into Sex By Alleged False Marriage Assurances; Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Advocate

The appellant’s counsel relied on affidavits of five persons alleging blackmailing and threats of false implication and referred to an affidavit attributed to the informant stating she had exaggerated the incident. The appellant also relied on an attendance sheet to contend he was posted elsewhere and argued delay in lodging the FIR and absence of date/time in the FIR. The State opposed, submitting that the FIR was lodged on 28.05.2022 and that statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded promptly and consistently supported the prosecution case.

On the scope of consideration, the Court stated: “this Court repeatedly requested learned counsel for the appellant to confine his submissions to the material available in the case diary, as affidavits relied upon by him were admittedly not part of the investigation record.” It further recorded: “this Court had confined the scope of hearing to the legality of the charge-sheet and the cognisance order, and specifically indicated that material extraneous to the case diary cannot be examined at this stage.” The Court observed: “The jurisdiction of this Court at this stage is limited to examining whether the charge-sheet and cognisance order suffer from legal infirmity, and not to undertake a roving enquiry based on unverified affidavits or disputed questions of fact.”

On the affidavits relied upon by the appellant, the Court stated: “The affidavits relied upon by learned counsel cannot be considered, as they do not form part of the case diary.” It recorded: “"…this Court deprecates the conduct of the learned counsel for the appellant, who has adopted an improper and impermissible practice of annexing and relying upon affidavits containing scandalous allegations questioning the character and dignity of a woman. Such pleadings are wholly unbecoming of an advocate and strike at the very foundation of ethical advocacy.”

Noting that a member of the Bar is not expected to rely on such material, the Bench observed: "Any attempt to portray a woman as being of "easy virtue" or to cast aspersions on her moral character is wholly irrelevant and is expressly barred under Section 53A and the proviso to Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These allegations amount to character assassination"

The Court recorded: "It is well settled that a woman's past conduct or character cannot be used to discredit her or defeat her legal rights. The impugned statements therefore deserve to be expunged and ignored for all purposes"

On the defence submissions, the Court stated: “The plea of alibi sought to be raised is unsupported by any evidence collected during investigation and, therefore, cannot be considered.” It recorded: “The affidavit allegedly filed by the victim also appears, prima facie, to be prepared under influence and cannot be relied upon at this stage.”

Also Read: UP Govt’s Ban On Political Caste Rallies Must Be Strictly Enforced; Value-Based Upbringing And Schooling Is The Lasting Solution: Allahabad High Court

On the prosecution material, the Court stated: “Statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. consistently support the prosecution case.” It also recorded: “it is evident that the statement of the victim has remained consistent from the very inception.” On delay, the Court stated: “particularly in cases of sexual offences, such delay cannot be evaluated at the stage of taking cognisance and is a matter to be examined during trial.”

The Court concluded: “Accordingly, appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Charge-sheet dated 30.09.2022 is upheld. Cognizance order dated 10.11.2022 is also upheld. Trial to proceed in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Sri Subham Tandon (State Law Officer).

Case Title: Bechan Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another.
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:21013
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. - 9287 of 2022.
Bench: Justice Anil Kumar-X.