On 10 July 2025, Patiala House Court in State v. Sachin acquitted the accused charged u/s 376(2)(n) IPC r/w Section 69 BNS. The prosecution alleged that the accused had repeatedly established sexual relations with the complainant for several years under the false pretext of marriage, which ultimately led to her pregnancy.

Court observed, “The FSL report prima facie prove the defence of the accused that he was not having an affair with the victim and that he did not had sexual relations with the victim.”

The complainant claimed that she had been in a relationship with Sachin for about 6 years. She alleged that on 05.12.2020, the accused first took her to a hotel in Green Park and established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. Over the next 3/4 years, he allegedly continued such relations at different places on the same false pretext. When she became pregnant, the accused refused to marry her, fled from his house, and switched off his phone.

On the basis of her complaint dated 11.11.2024, an FIR was registered u/s 69 BNS, and subsequently, Section 376(2)(n) IPC was added after her statement u/s 183 BNSS. Medical tests confirmed her pregnancy, but she refused internal medical examination. The accused was arrested, and exhibits, including fetal samples, were seized. Eventually, a chargesheet was filed before Sessions Court.

In her testimony, the victim admitted that she had consensual sexual relations with the accused and stated that “they both decided to marry each other but later, she refused for marriage.” She further admitted that after she became pregnant, she proposed marriage to Sachin, to which he replied that he would think about it. She also admitted that Sachin had sent her a message stating, “13 tareekh tak ruk jaa, hum log shaadi kar lenge.”

The complainant’s mother also turned hostile, testifying that her daughter told her she was pregnant due to relations with Sachin, but that they filed the complaint in anger. The Court noted, “Nothing incriminating came against the accused during evidence of mother of the victim.”

A crucial turn in the case came from the FSL report dated 01.04.2025. Court observed, “The DNA profile generated from the source of blood sample of the accused is not the biological father of the DNA profile generated from the source of fetus of the victim.” This contradicted the complainant’s allegation that her pregnancy was due to the accused.

In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused stated that the complainant was pressuring him into marriage as she had become pregnant from another man who was already married. He stated that he did not want to marry her, but she kept insisting, and when he switched off his mobile phone, she lodged the present FIR against him.

Court noted that“The testimony of the victim proves that it was she who refused to marry the accused.” It further observed, “Even during cross-examination of the victim, nothing material could surface which could prove that the accused had repeatedly established sexual relations with the victim on the false pretext of marriage.”

Accordingly, Court concluded that prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and held, “benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted of the charges alleged”