300 WhatsApp messages after a rape? Supreme Court says not guilty

She said he raped her at a guest house. But after that day, she sent him 300 WhatsApp messages.

It was May 2018. A 28-year-old married woman stepped out to see a doctor. On the way, she met the appellant — a married man, her brother-in-law's friend. They travelled together. On the return, he said his stomach hurt. He needed to stop at a guest house.

Inside that room, she later alleged, he bolted the door. He forced himself on her. He took obscene photographs. He threatened her.

But what happened next — and what did not happen — became the centre of a Supreme Court judgment that tested how courts weigh a rape survivor's word against the digital trail of her own phone.

When the WhatsApp messages told a different story

The trial court convicted the appellant under three sections of the Indian Penal Code: Section 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), Section 376 (punishment for rape), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). The sentence was life imprisonment under Section 376. The High Court confirmed it. Both courts believed the woman's testimony.

But when the Supreme Court bench — Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan — examined the case, they found something the lower courts had missed.

The woman had exchanged WhatsApp messages with the accused before the alleged incident. She travelled with him voluntarily. At the guest house, they registered as husband and wife. She did not protest when they left. The medical officer's report noted no abrasions, no bruises, no signs of struggle — no injuries on her body.

And then there were the messages after the alleged rape. Three hundred to four hundred WhatsApp messages. Sent by her to him. Continuing long after that day at the guest house.

Why the presumption of no consent did not apply

The prosecution had relied on a powerful legal tool: Section 114A of the Evidence Act — a legal presumption that in certain rape cases, the court must assume the woman did not consent. But the Supreme Court pointed out a critical detail.

Section 114A can only be used when the accused is charged under specific clauses of Section 376(2) IPC — including Section 376(2)(f), which covers rape by a person in a position of trust or authority, such as a doctor-patient or guardian-ward relationship.

In this case, the trial court had not framed any charge under Section 376(2)(f). The prosecution had not alleged any such relationship. Without that charge, the Supreme Court held, the presumption could not be invoked — not even at the appellate stage. The burden remained squarely on the prosecution to prove absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court held that the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act can only be invoked when the prosecution is specifically for an offence under the enumerated clauses of Section 376(2) IPC. In the absence of a charge framed under any clause of Section 376(2), the presumption cannot be invoked at appellate stage, and the burden remains on the prosecution to prove absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court had dismissed both the appellant's appeal against conviction and the prosecutrix's appeal against acquittal on Sections 365, 354D(1)(ii), and 506 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecutrix's testimony inspired confidence, holding that Section 114A was inapplicable since no charge was framed under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and no fiduciary relationship existed.

The CCTV footage that never appeared

The prosecution also failed to produce CCTV footage from the guest house. The Supreme Court noted this as a significant gap. The CCTV hard drive, never summoned, could have shown her walking in unescorted or leaving without a struggle. The prosecution offered no explanation for why this evidence was withheld.

The Court examined the woman's testimony for what it called "surrounding circumstances" — the kind of details that, taken together, either strengthen or weaken a witness's credibility. Voluntary accompaniment. No protest. Posing as spouses. No injuries. Continued communication after the incident. Each factor alone might not be decisive. But cumulatively, the bench found, they undermined the prosecution's case.

The Court further held that while minor contradictions and omissions in a sexual offence victim's testimony should not lead to rejection, the court must assess whether the testimony inspires confidence. Where multiple surrounding circumstances — voluntary accompaniment, absence of protest, posing as spouses, absence of physical injuries contradicting claims, continued communication after the incident, and non-production of material evidence by prosecution — cumulatively undermine credibility, it is unsafe to convict solely on such testimony.

What the law says about electronic evidence

The Supreme Court also addressed a technical but important point about how electronic evidence is admitted in court. Under Section 65B of the Evidence Act — the rule that requires a certificate from the device owner to make electronic records admissible — a certificate from the person who owns the device is usually required to prove the messages are genuine. The Court observed that even when the other side does not dispute the genuineness of WhatsApp messages under Section 294 CrPC — a provision that allows documents to be read without formal proof where the opposite party is called upon to admit or deny genuineness — the court still has discretion to insist on the certificate.

The Court clarified that Section 294 CrPC, which permits documents to be read without formal proof where genuineness is not disputed, requires as a condition precedent that the opposite party be called upon to admit or deny genuineness. Even where genuineness is not disputed, the court retains discretion, and Section 294 does not override the requirement of a Section 65B certificate for electronic records. This means that in future cases, judges cannot automatically accept electronic records just because no one objects.

When the court said: not guilty

The Supreme Court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The bench held that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The woman's testimony, the Court said, did not "inspire confidence" — a legal standard that means the judge must feel the witness is telling the truth, not just that the witness said certain words.

The Court was careful to note that minor contradictions in a sexual offence victim's testimony should not automatically lead to rejection. But where multiple circumstances — especially the 300-400 WhatsApp messages after the alleged incident — cumulatively undermine credibility, it is unsafe to convict solely on that testimony.

The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 342, 376, and 201 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 376. The High Court dismissed both the appellant's appeal against conviction and the prosecutrix's appeal against acquittal on Sections 365, 354D(1)(ii), and 506 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the prosecutrix's evidence and found several indicators of a consensual relationship: continuous WhatsApp messaging, voluntary travel together, posing as husband and wife at the guest house, no protest on leaving, no injuries found by the medical officer, and continued WhatsApp contact — 300 to 400 messages — even after the alleged incident.

The Court also noted the prosecution's failure to produce CCTV footage from the guest house. The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The operative order stated: "The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is on bail. Therefore, his bail bond shall stand cancelled."

THE PLAY: If you are defending a rape case where the complainant continued communicating with the accused after the alleged incident, file an application under Section 91 CrPC (summons for documents) demanding the complete WhatsApp chat history — and argue that the prosecution's failure to produce it creates an adverse inference.

The woman's messages never reached the trial court. They reached the Supreme Court only because the defence insisted. Sometimes, the most damning evidence is the one the prosecution never introduced.