The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a cognizance order in a rape case, strongly deprecating the conduct of the appellant’s counsel for attempting to portray the victim as a woman of “easy virtue.”
Justice Anil Kumar-X upheld the charge sheet and cognizance order against the appellant, Bechan Prasad, observing that allegations attacking the character and dignity of a woman are “wholly unbecoming of an advocate” and constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the cognizance order dated November 11, 2022, and the charge sheet dated September 30, 2022, in Special Criminal Case No. 591 of 2022. The case arose from Case Crime No. 132 of 2022, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on May 28, 2022. The victim alleged that she had visited the appellant’s clinic for treatment, where he administered a sedative pill on the pretext of treatment. She alleged that she was raped while unconscious and subsequently found her clothes unsettled upon waking. The victim further stated that she became pregnant as a result of the alleged rape.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava and Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, contended that the victim was “habitual in blackmailing persons for extorting money.” The counsel relied on affidavits of five individuals—Mukhlal, Ramavatar, Santram, Rujhane, and Bhagirathi—who allegedly claimed the victim was a “woman of easy virtue” and operated by stopping people midway to demand money under threat of false implication.
The defence argued that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of nine months and that the real motive was the appellant’s refusal to provide abortion pills. A plea of alibi was also raised, with the counsel submitting an attendance sheet to claim the appellant was posted as a Pharmacist at Rajkiya Ayurvedic Chikitsalay, Daulatpur, Bahraich, at the relevant time.
Opposing the appeal, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submitted that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were consistent and supported the prosecution case.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court strongly reprimanded the appellant’s counsel for relying on extraneous affidavits that were not part of the case diary and for persisting in arguments regarding the victim’s character despite the Court’s warnings.
Regarding the allegations against the victim’s character, Justice Anil Kumar-X 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. Such allegations violate the woman’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and constitute an abuse of the process of law.”
The Court held that a woman’s past conduct or character cannot be used to discredit her or defeat her legal rights, ordering that the impugned statements be “expunged and ignored for all purposes.”
On the plea of alibi, the Bench noted that it was unsupported by evidence collected during the investigation. The Court also addressed the delay in lodging the FIR, stating:
“As regards the delay in lodging the First Information Report, it is well settled that, 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 also took serious note of the counsel’s conduct during the hearing. The judgment recorded that the counsel insisted on arguing based on extraneous material and attempted to “browbeat the Court by openly stating that its order would be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
“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,” the Court remarked.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked merit. The charge sheet dated September 30, 2022, and the cognizance order dated November 11, 2022, were upheld. The trial court has been directed to proceed in accordance with the law.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 9287 of 2022
- Bench: Justice Anil Kumar-X
