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”

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sanjay Khanagwal of Patiala House Courts, Delhi made the judgement while dealing with a rape case filed by a woman in 2016.

The case:
The woman joined an organization in July 15, 2015 where the accused was the Managing Director (MD).
In December 2015, the prosecutrix (woman) 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.
She alleged that the accused started blackmailing and stalking her after 2-3 days of the incident.

Based on the allegations made by the prosecutrix, an FIR was registered at PS Sagarpur, against the accused on February 25, 2016. A charge sheet was then 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.

After spending 8 months in jail, the accused was released on bail in October 2016.

The accused denied all the allegations and pleaded not guilty. He said that all the accusations against him were false.

It was further submitted that it was the prosecutrix who started getting close to him, sharing her 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 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 defense counsel argued that there were several contradictions and 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.

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

The court noted, “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.”

“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.

“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,” the court said.

Therefore, Court held that “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.”

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.