Reprimand for portraying rape victim as a woman of “easy virtue”: Allahabad High Court

Picture of Name

Name

The Allahabad High Court strongly reprimanded an advocate for attempting to portray a rape victim as a woman of “easy virtue” and cautioned him to exercise due care and control while making submissions before the Court.

The Court observed that such allegations violate a woman’s fundamental right to dignity and privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court further ruled that,

“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 held that annexing and relying upon affidavits containing allegations questioning the character of a woman is not only improper but also strikes at the very foundation of ethical advocacy.

Terming such conduct as “unbecoming” of an advocate, the Court deprecated the practice in strong words.

These observations were made by the Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X while dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by Bechan Prasad.

In the instant case, the Court also found the conduct of the counsel was objectionable and further noted that,

“……….Despite repeated attempts to restrain him from indulging in unnecessarily lengthy arguments, learned counsel insisted on advancing submissions based on extraneous material and stated that he would argue the matter at length and, if necessary, challenge the order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

The Court held that making an open statement that the order would be challenged before the Supreme Court and also making inaccurate and misleading statements concerning earlier orders of the High Court, reflected a serious lapse in professional conduct and was contrary to established norms of advocacy.

In the appeal, the appellant had challenged the cognizance order and charge sheet issued in a case registered at Police Station Bansi, Siddharthnagar, under Section 376 IPC and the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

According to the facts of the case, the victim had gone to the accused’s clinic for treatment. On the pretext of administering treatment, the accused allegedly made her consume a sedative pill, due to which she became unconscious, and during that state, he allegedly raped her. Upon regaining consciousness, she found her clothes in a disturbed condition.

The victim further alleged that she was eight to nine months pregnant and that the pregnancy was the result of the alleged rape. She also informed the Court that she is a married woman and has two children.

Challenging the cognizance order, counsel for the accused/appellant described the victim as “habitual in blackmailing persons for extorting money” and placed before the Court affidavits of five persons – Mukhlal, Ramavatar, Santram, Rujhane, and Bhagirathi, who allegedly described the victim as a woman of questionable character.

These persons also claimed to have disclosed her alleged modus operandi of stopping passers-by midway, demanding money, and threatening false criminal implication. The appellant’s counsel further submitted that, as per the affidavits, the victim was presently living with her fourth husband. It was also argued that the real reason for lodging the FIR was that the appellant had refused to provide abortion pills.

It was additionally submitted that at the relevant time, the appellant was posted as a Pharmacist at Rajkiya Ayurvedic Chikitsalay, Daulatpur, Bahraich, and was not present in the village.

In this regard, the attendance register was relied upon. It was further argued that the FIR had been lodged after an unexplained delay of nine months and did not disclose the date or time of the alleged incident.

On the other hand, the AGA argued that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded promptly and consistently supported the prosecution case from the very beginning.

In its findings, the Court held that the affidavits relied upon by the appellant’s counsel were not part of the case diary and were therefore inadmissible at this stage.

The Court clarified that,

“The jurisdiction of this Court at this stage is limited to examining whether the charge-sheet and cognizance order suffer from legal infirmity, and not to undertake a roving enquiry based on unverified affidavits or disputed questions of fact.”

The Court also restated that it is easy to level allegations regarding a woman’s moral character, but such allegations cannot be used to defeat her legal rights.

The Court emphasized that,

“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.”

The Court also rejected the defence argument that the accused was in other place at the time of the incident, observing that no material collected during investigation supported this claim.

It further held that the issue of delay in lodging the FIR cannot be evaluated at the stage of cognizance and, is a matter to be examined during trial.

Finally, finding no merit in the appeal, the Court rejected the appeal.

Case: Bechan Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another

Date of Order: 29.01.2026

See Order: Bechan Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another

Related Post