In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man who was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for rape and abduction. The Court observed that the conviction was based on "materially different" versions provided by the victim and that the trial court had "perversely" ignored crucial medical evidence.

Setting aside the 2019 conviction of Bhagwat Kushwaha, Justice Achal Sachdev held that once the prosecution fails to prove that the victim was a minor, her voluntary conduct and inconsistent statements become fatal to the prosecution's case.

The matter dates back to May 28, 2015, when an FIR was lodged by the victim’s father at Police Station Sakrar, District Jhansi. The father alleged that his daughter had gone missing during the night and had been kidnapped by the appellant, Bhagwat Kushwaha.

The victim was recovered the following day from the Mauranipur railway station and was sent for a medical examination on May 30, 2015. During the trial, a critical dispute arose regarding the victim's age. While an ossification test suggested she was around 17 years old, the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence (like a birth certificate or school records) to prove she was a minor.

The trial court eventually ruled that the victim was a major at the time of the incident. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of charges under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act. However, despite finding her to be an adult, the trial court proceeded to convict Kushwaha under Sections 366 (Abduction) and 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relying primarily on the victim’s testimony in court.

Upon reviewing the appeal, the High Court found that the victim's story had shifted significantly at every stage of the legal process.

Justice Sachdev noted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before a Magistrate, the victim had explicitly stated that she was in love with the appellant and had gone with him of her own free will. Crucially, in that early statement, she made no allegation of sexual assault or rape.

A similar narrative was found in her medical records. When examined by the doctor—in the presence of her mother—she stated that she had gone with the appellant voluntarily. The High Court emphasized that these early statements, made before there was any "possibility of tutoring," carried immense evidentiary weight.

It was only during the later stage of the trial that the victim changed her version to allege that she was forcibly kidnapped and raped. The High Court remarked that a conviction cannot stand on a foundation of such shifting and contradictory claims.

The High Court expressed disappointment with how the trial court handled medical evidence. The examining doctor had found:

No external injuries on the victim’s body.
No signs of recent sexual activity.
An old, healed tear in the hymen (indicating no recent assault).
No presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal smear.

The High Court pointed out a "perverse" error in the trial court’s logic. The trial court had wrongly recorded the date of the incident as May 25, 2015, instead of May 28 (as mentioned in the FIR). This mistake led the trial court to believe that the medical examination (on May 30) was conducted five days later, allowing them to dismiss the absence of medical proof as a "lapse of time."

"This misreading of the record led the trial court to unjustifiably discard medical evidence favourable to the accused," Justice Sachdev observed.

The judgment brings back focus to a settled legal principle: when the prosecutrix (victim) is an adult, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse occurred without her consent.

The High Court reiterated that since the victim was found to be a major, her voluntary movement with the accused across public places like a railway station without raising an alarm strongly suggested consent. The Court criticized the trial court for effectively shifting the burden of proof onto the accused to prove his innocence, rather than requiring the prosecution to prove the crime.

"Conviction cannot be sustained merely because the defence failed to put certain questions in cross-examination," the Court stressed, reminding the lower judiciary that the "essential ingredients" of the offence must be established independently by the prosecution.

Concluding that the prosecution’s case was riddled with holes and that the trial court had "selectively relied" on evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal.

The Court set aside the conviction and sentence orders dated September 5 and 6, 2019. Bhagwat Kushwaha, who had been in custody, was ordered to be released immediately upon the execution of a personal bond.

Case Title: Bhagwat Kushwaha vs. State of U.P.

Judgment Date: January 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev

Citation: 2026:AHC:8775