Read Time: 14 minutes

A Delhi Court has recently, acquitted a man  after 6 years of trial in a false rape case. The Court found that “no statement of the woman was true or trustworthy” & “all the shreds of evidence prove she was in a consensual relationship with the accused”.

The man had been charged under Section 328(causing hurt by means of poison, etc), 376 (punishment for rape), 354D (stalking), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sanjay Khanagwal of Patiala House Courts, Delhi observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not of a wholly reliable witness, and she is found to be not a sterling witness. Therefore, the sole testimony could not be relied upon for the conviction of the accused.

The case of the prosecutrix is that on July 15, 2015, she joined an organization where the accused was the Managing Director (MD).

In December 2015, the prosecutrix and the accused were going for a business meeting, and on the way as the accused had forgotten the voucher book that was to be given to the accountant, they first went to his home to collect the voucher book. 

On reaching the house, as the prosecutrix was thirsty, the accused offered her water. After having the water, she felt drowsy and after 15-20 minutes, realized that the knot of her lower was open.

It was alleged by the prosecutrix that after 2-3 days of the incident, the accused started blackmailing her and established a physical relationship with her on several occasions. It was further alleged that the accused also stalked her desperately.

Based on the allegations made by the prosecutrix, an FIR was registered at PS Sagarpur, against the accused on February 25, 2016. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the accused was charged under Sections 328, 354D, 376(2)(n), and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused was arrested on March 2, 2016.

Later, on October 26, 2016, the accused was released on bail. The accused was in jail for 8 months.

The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence and false implication by the prosecutrix in the case.

It was further submitted that it was the prosecutrix who started getting close to him, disclosing personal problems, and gradually became good friends. It was also stated that the prosecutrix started coming to his residence at Gurgaon.

Furthermore, it was stated that in November 2015, the prosecutrix told him that she loved him and wanted to stay with him, and so, they started establishing a physical relationship with each other. It is further stated that both of them were also in touch through WhatsApp and used to exchange messages daily.

The accused denied exchanging any threats to the prosecutrix, her husband, and family members and also denied making any obscene videos to intimidate her.

The learned counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution had established the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and to support her stand her statement had been recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.

On the other hand, the learned defense counsel argued that there were several contradictions and inconsistencies in the version of the prosecutrix. It was submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a trustworthy witness and that on the sole basis of her testimony accused cannot be convicted.

It was further argued that the prosecution never came up with any forensic report or any medical evidence supporting allegations against the accused. It was further contended that no obscene video/photograph of the prosecutrix was prepared/clicked and the prosecution failed to put forward any forensic evidence to prove the same.

Furthermore, it was argued that there has been a delay of 73 days in filing the FIR and the same cannot be explained by the prosecution.

Court observed, “The case of prosecution primarily depends upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and in her testimony, she has stated about the commission of rape by the accused against her will and without her consent.”

“On comparing her testimony with her previous version i.e. complaint as highlighted by learned defense counsel, it is revealed that in the complaint, the prosecutrix has stated that he along with accused went to his house where he offered water then she turned unconscious and bad things happened,” noted Court.

On Contrary, “In the complaint, she did not clarify what was the bad thing happened with her. Similarly, in her statement under S. 164 CrPC, she has stated that she went with the accused to his home where he had offered her water and she was thirsty, she drank water and after a few minutes she was feeling drowsy and after 15-20 minutes she realized that her pajama knot was open but her suit was fine. And on the same day she did not come to know about establishing of any physical relationship by the accused,” further noted Court.

Furthermore, Court observed that “in her testimony, she has ‘improved her version’ by stating that a string of her salwar was already opened and it was in lower condition, and on inquiring, accused told that she was feeling drowsy and as she was not feeling well that is why he took her on the bed.”

“In her complaint, she has merely stated about the happening of a bad thing. In her S.164 CrPC statement and testimony, she came to know about establishing of physical relationship with the accused only when he called her up 2-3 days after the incident and started blackmailing her by informing her of preparing a video of the physical relationship established by him with her,” Court on perusing these three versions stated that it is not clear whether actually any physical relationship was established on that day by the accused at the first instance as alleged by the prosecutrix or not.

Hence, it was clear, that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, Court held “the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused offered water mixed with some stupefying substance to the prosecutrix and after taking the same she became unconscious and thereafter accused committed rape upon her.”

“Prosecution further failed to prove that the accused used to stalk the prosecutrix even after she left the job on January 29, 2016, that he criminally intimidated her and established physical relationship repeatedly with her against her will and without her consent,” added Court.

Accordingly, “the charges against the accused are not proved and therefore, accused stands acquitted of the offenses for which he has faced trial,” ordered Court.

Case Title: State v. [Name Withheld]
please contact us if you require a copy of the judgment