Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Bechan Prasad v. State of U.P. & Another, 2026

It reinforces that irrelevant character attacks have no place in criminal proceedings, especially in sensitive cases like rape.

Allahabad High Court·6 February 2026

Constitution of India

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

6 February 2026

Judges

Justice Anil Kumar

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Bechan Prasad, was facing trial for rape under Section 376 IPC and SC-ST Act.

The victim, a married woman, alleged that the appellant administered a sedative under the pretext of treatment and raped her.
The trial court took cognizance and the charge-sheet was filed based on evidence collected during investigation.
The appellant’s counsel challenged cognizance, arguing the victim was a habitual blackmailer and submitted affidavits of five individuals claiming she was a “woman of easy virtue”.
The Assistant Government Advocate submitted that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were consistent and corroborated the prosecution’s case.
The High Court was asked to examine whether the cognizance order was valid and whether the extraneous affidavits could be relied upon.

Whether an advocate can rely on extraneous affidavits alleging that a rape survivor is a “woman of easy virtue” to discredit her during the stage of taking cognizance?
Whether such allegations violate the victim’s right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 and are legally permissible under the Indian Evidence Act?
Whether delay in lodging FIR or the past conduct of the victim can be grounds to discredit her version at the cognizance stage?

Advocates must exercise due care and restraint, and cannot rely on extraneous material attacking the victim’s character.
A woman’s past conduct or character cannot be used to defeat her legal rights.
The cognizance order and charge-sheet are valid, and the appeal is dismissed.
Emphasized ethical advocacy and protection of victim’s dignity in criminal proceedings.

Reaffirms the principle of victim protection under Article 21.
Highlights the role of courts in ensuring ethical advocacy, discouraging attempts to intimidate or browbeat the court.
Reinforces that irrelevant character attacks have no place in criminal proceedings, especially in sensitive cases like rape.
Clarifies that delay in FIR or victim’s alleged behavior cannot discredit her case at the initial stage of cognizance.
Serves as a warning to legal practitioners regarding professional conduct and respect for procedural and substantive rights of survivors.