Gauhati High Court Upholds CRPF Man’s 10-Year Jail Term in Rape Case
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel for raping a 21-year-old woman, rejecting his appeal and confirming the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court in June 2022. The court said the survivor’s testimony was credible, and held that her silence for several days after the incident was sufficiently explained by trauma and the close relationship between the two families.
Justice Mitali Thakuria delivered the order on August 28, 2026, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had challenged the trial court’s verdict, which had also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. The High Court found no reason to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence.
The prosecution case related to an incident in 2021. According to the record considered by the court, the woman had attended the birthday celebration of the accused’s son. She later travelled with the accused in his newly purchased car, along with her cousin, who was the accused’s daughter, and a driver. On the way back, the accused allegedly diverted the vehicle to an isolated place. The driver stepped away to make a purchase, and the prosecution alleged that the accused then followed the woman out of the car and sexually assaulted her.
The cousin, who remained inside the locked car with loud music playing, did not witness the assault itself. However, the High Court noted that her account supported the prosecution version in other respects. She later saw the woman crying and described circumstances that included the accused holding the woman and the victim’s distress after the alleged incident.
After returning home, the woman reportedly remained silent for about three or four days. The court noted that she was not eating properly and appeared distressed. She then attempted to take her own life and was taken to hospital, where she disclosed the assault to her parents. The family first approached church and village authorities before lodging a first information report. The accused was arrested and charged. During the trial, the woman testified as a witness, but after giving evidence she attempted suicide again and later died.
Justice Thakuria treated this sequence of events as central to the question of delay and credibility. In the order, the court observed that the victim “was not even in a position to tell anything about the incident even to her parents, who had cordial relationship with the accused and she also used to address the accused as uncle and her mother also used to treat the accused as her son.” The court added that she “had undergone the mental trauma, and for which she was keeping silent for about 3/4 days and finally had to take such a step to end her life.”
The defence had argued that the woman’s version contained inconsistencies, that the FIR had been delayed, and that the medical examination found no injuries or signs of recent sexual intercourse. The High Court, however, held that the absence of injury marks did not by itself undermine a prosecution case supported by a consistent account and corroborating circumstances. It relied on the testimony of the cousin as well as the parents, and noted that there was no evidence of prior enmity or any reason for the family to falsely implicate a person they treated as part of the family. “There was nothing to disbelieve the woman’s testimony,” the court held.
The order also reflects a principle repeatedly applied by Indian courts in rape cases: the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found trustworthy, can be sufficient to sustain a conviction, and delay in reporting is not necessarily fatal when it is explained by fear, shame, trauma or family pressure. In this case, the court considered the family’s cordial relationship with the accused, who was addressed as “uncle,” to be an important part of that explanation. It also treated the survivor’s suicide attempts as evidence of the emotional shock she had suffered.
The accused’s name has not been published in reports of the judgment. No separate departmental proceedings by the CRPF have been reported in connection with the High Court’s order. With the appeal dismissed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court now stand affirmed.
The case also highlights how close personal relationships can delay reporting in sexual-violence cases and complicate the criminal process for survivors. In this matter, the woman testified but did not live to see the appeal concluded. The High Court’s reasoning focused on why her silence for several days and the absence of visible injuries did not weaken the prosecution case, rather than on any institutional consequences for the force to which the convict belonged.
The sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs 10,000 remain in force. Any period already spent in custody would ordinarily be set off under the applicable criminal procedure provisions.
