A court here while granting bail to a doctor accused of rape observed that the evidence suggest that the man and the alleged victim had a sexual relationship on a “consensual basis.”
Slamming the Investigating Officer (IO) for not conducting a “fair investigation,” the court directed an enquiry regarding the manner of the investigation by a higher officer.
Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana was hearing the bail plea of the doctor, who was accused of raping and sodomising the complainant on the pretext of marriage on May 31 this year.
Noting that the complainant refused her internal examination, the judge said there was no medico-legal case to support the allegations of rape and sodomy.
He also underlined that the court had directed the investigating officer to verify the complainant’s antecedents and according to the IO’s report, she had earlier registered an FIR against another man with similar allegations, the judge said.
The woman had also lodged a complaint of criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, wrongful restraint and other penal provisions against another person, where the IO concerned had filed a closure report, the court noted.
It also noted that there was another FIR where the complainant was an accused.
Also, a key witness in the case, who was reportedly her friend, had registered an FIR for the offence of rape against another person, the court said. “Therefore, the antecedents of the complainant and her friend are reflecting something else which is in contradiction to her allegations in the present case.”
The court had in a recent order noted that the alleged victim also filed a complaint against the doctor before the Delhi Government Mediation and Conciliation Centre in July 2023.
It said that she did not mention rape in that complaint and the matter was dismissed because of her non-appearance.
“It is surprising to observe that despite the alleged rape, the complainant applied for mediation instead of informing the police and getting herself medically examined to support her allegations,” the court said.
It said the complainant did not provide her phone for investigation, nor did she join the investigation. Also, she had not disclosed her present address to the IO, the court said.
The court said the investigation of the accused was complete and the remaining probe had to be conducted based on the facts available on record.
“Accused is not involved in any other case and is a doctor by profession. The chat history placed on record reflects that both parties were in a relationship and without mentioning the contents of the messages, it is clear that the sexual relationship was being continued on a consensual basis,” it said.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to admit the accused to regular bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount,” the court added.
During the proceedings, the accused’s counsel, Advocate Harish Kumar Gupta said his client was “lured and trapped into a racket of honey trapping being run by the complainant along with her associates.”
Underscoring that it was the “need of the hour to look into the conduct of the IO,” the court said the doctor filed a complaint against the alleged victim alleging “honey trap” on October 17 this year, but the IO did not take any action.
“It was the duty of the IO to verify the contents of this complaint without any delay IO ought to have initiated action on the complaint of the accused Instead of doing so, FIR was registered against the accused on October 25 and the accused was arrested on October 27,” the court said.
It said no police remand was asked by the IO for recovery of any article or evidence or preparation of any ‘pointing out memo’ of the alleged place of occurrence.
“I have also gone through the case diary where the statement of the complainant was recorded on October 25 after preparation of her MLC but a blank space has been left in the statement to fill in the MLC number which reflects that either the statement was recorded prior to the preparation of MLC or IO is not vigilant about the proceedings to be conducted by her in a serious offence like rape,” the judge said.
“It was the duty of the IO to conduct a fair investigation which seems to be apparently missing in this case,” he added.
The judge then directed that an inquiry had to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) concerned regarding the “manner in which investigation has been done” by the IO.