"Difficult To Accept Widow With 2 Children In Populated Locality Can Be Raped On Several Occasions" : Bombay HC Quashes FIR & Chargesheet

The Aurangabad Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase has quashed an FIR and chargesheet against a man while stating that it is difficult to believe that a widow with two children in a populated residential locality was forcefully raped several times.

The accused had approached the High Court for quashing of FIR and chargesheet after an FIR was filed against him on a complaint of the woman. The woman lost her husband on 18.03.2017.

The victim alleged that on 13.07.2017, when the victim was with her children, the applicant came to her house on the pretext of drinking water and he brandished a knife and issued threats to kill. It was also alleged that he had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim.

The victim in her complaint also stated that the accused had demanded money from the victim. However, when the victim refused, the applicant took away her ornaments and told the victim that he would mortgage them to a jeweller. Further, the FIR stated that the victim was raped on multiple occasions and was also beaten up.

The counsel for the applicant argued before the court that FIR is belated, false, and full of baseless allegations. He submitted that the informant is a widow with two children, resides in a thickly populated locality and that the victim and applicant have known each other for a long time. He also contended that the jeweller’s statement shows that the ornaments were mortgaged at her instance.

Further, it was argued that the statement of her parents shows that the parents were ignorant about the alleged incidences and she did not herself visit them at any point in time nor allowed them to visit her.

The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the victim was ravished multiple times at knifepoint and that her ornaments were forcefully taken away. He informed the court the victim had shown courage and lodged an FIR and there is ample material against the applicant.

The counsel for the victim argued that the victim was raped on multiple occasions and the applicant had issued threats to kill her and the children. He submitted that the investigation is over and the chargesheet was filed and therefore the applicant must be made to face trial.

The division bench noted that the said FIR was filed after 6 months by the victim. Further, the supplementary statement showed that the victim had stated that the applicant regularly visited her house and even came to her help at times. Further, the statement showed that she had even entrusted her ATM card for operation. Therefore, there was room to presume that there was a long-standing association between the applicant and informant since the lifetime of her husband.

The court also noted that the statement of the jeweller showed that he knew the applicant and the victim and that the victim herself mortgaged her ornaments.

The court said, "Surprisingly informant' parents have also given statement to police that their daughter was residing separately and neither she visited them nor she allowed them to come to her house and as such, they were completely unaware of any incident that took place."

The bench said that that it is difficult to accept the widow was raped in a populated locality, and said that,

"We are of considered opinion that apart from inordinate delay in lodging FIR, the allegations of rape levelled against the applicant does not inspire confidence. In fact, there was long standing acquaintance between applicant and accused. It is difficult to accept that a widow with two children residing in a thickly populated residential locality could be forcibly raped not once but on several occasions." 

While quashing the FIR and chargesheet the court said,

"In our considered opinion, whatever sexual encounters took place between informant and applicant apparently seem to be consensual one, in the light of above discussed reasons. Therefore, making present applicant face trial with such allegations would render him not only hardship but great injustice. For ends of justice to meet, we find it a fit case to exercise the inherent power bestowed on this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C."

Case Title: Siddhodhan vs State of Maharashtra