The Delhi High Court has dismissed a woman's appeal against the acquittal of a man accused of raping her over several years, ruling that the trial court's decision was a "reasonably possible view" of the evidence and did not call for interference. Justice Madhu Jain pronounced the judgment on September 3, 2026, in a case that had also involved a DNA report confirming the accused as the biological father of the woman's child.
Background Of The Case
According to the case, the woman was married and living with her husband and an adopted child. Her husband had suffered 75% disability after a fall from a roof in 2007 and could not father a biological child, which led the couple to adopt in 2014.
The woman alleged that Anoop, who was known to her family, began visiting their house from 2017 and forced himself on her through threats and, on one occasion, by administering an intoxicating substance. She later became pregnant and gave birth on June 20, 2019. A DNA test conducted during investigation confirmed Anoop as the biological father.
An FIR was registered in March 2021 under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 377, 506 and 509 of the IPC. During trial, Anoop admitted to having physical relations with the woman but claimed the relationship was consensual and that her husband was aware of it. The trial court acquitted him of all charges in October 2024, citing inconsistencies in the woman's testimony, delay in reporting, and unproved allegations regarding threats and nude photographs.
Court's Observations
Hearing the appeal, the High Court noted that while the DNA report established sexual intercourse and paternity, it could not by itself establish whether the relationship was consensual. The Court pointed to several discrepancies flagged by the trial court - including changing accounts of how the alleged intoxicant was administered, the woman's state of consciousness during the first incident, and conflicting versions about when and how her husband learned of the pregnancy.
The bench also observed that claims of nude photographs and videos were never corroborated, even after forensic examination of the accused's phone.
Explaining the limited scope of appellate interference in acquittal appeals, the Court observed:
"The learned Trial Court has examined the evidence and arrived at a conclusion which is reasonably possible on the material before it. The fact that another view may also be possible is not sufficient to justify interference in an appeal against acquittal."
The Court further remarked:
"The gravity of the accusation cannot substitute the standard of proof required in a criminal trial."
Decision
Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal dated October 7, 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, in the case arising from FIR No. 138/2021 registered at PS Dwarka North.
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
