The Orissa High Court, in a judgment delivered by Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, observed that a rape trial must not be conducted as a victim‑blaming exercise. The Court expressly deprecated the submissions made on behalf of the accused that sought to question the character of the prosecutrix by alleging that she was “habituated to sexual intercourse”. The Bench held that such an approach is contrary to the law, which does not permit the victim’s sexual history to be used to discredit a rape allegation.

The Court reasoned that the essence of a rape trial is to determine whether the accused committed the offence of rape, not to inquire into the moral or sexual conduct of the victim. By allowing the defence to raise the victim’s past sexual behaviour, the trial risks being diverted from the central issue of consent and the actus reus of the offence. The Bench emphasized that the law treats the prosecutrix’s prior sexual conduct as irrelevant to the question of whether consent was given on the occasion in question.

In its observations, the Court stated that converting a rape trial into an inquiry into the victim’s character amounts to victim‑blaming, which the law expressly forbids. The Bench noted that the defence’s attempt to portray the victim as habituated to sexual intercourse was an impermissible line of questioning that undermines the dignity of the victim and distracts from the factual matrix required to establish the offence.

The judgment further clarified that any evidence or argument seeking to suggest that the victim’s past sexual conduct renders her less credible or more likely to have consented is inadmissible. The Court held that such submissions are not only legally untenable but also contrary to the protective intent of criminal law provisions governing sexual offences.

By condemning the defence’s reliance on the victim’s sexual history, the Orissa High Court reinforced the principle that the credibility of a prosecutrix in a rape case must be assessed solely on the basis of her testimony and the surrounding circumstances of the alleged incident, without reference to her prior sexual behaviour. The Court’s observation serves as a directive to trial courts to disallow any line of defence that seeks to impugn the victim’s character on the ground of past sexual conduct.

The ruling, cited as [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 80], adds to the growing body of judicial pronouncements that safeguard victims of sexual offences from being subjected to character assassination during trial. The Bench’s stance underscores that the law’s focus remains on the accused’s conduct and the issue of consent, rather than on the victim’s personal history.

In sum, the Orissa High Court’s decision makes it clear that any attempt to discredit a rape allegation by referencing the victim’s sexual history is impermissible and will be deprecated by the courts. The judgment reaffirms the imperative that rape trials must remain focused on the factual question of whether the offence was committed, free from victim‑blaming inquiries.