In a significant order, a Delhi court allowed a man walk free in a rape case after finding there was no “grave suspicion” warranting framing of charges against him.
Additional Sessions Judge Anjani Mahajan was hearing a case against the man, against whom the woman had recorded statements before the police and the judicial magistrate as well.
Taking note of the submissions of lawyer Sumeet Verma that the rape case was foisted on the accused following a theft FIR against the woman, the sessions court said, “The prosecution’s own material improbabilises her (prosecutix’s) statement and does not raise a strong suspicion against the accused of having committed the alleged offences.”
Referring to a 2010 judgement of the Supreme Court, the judge said, “No grave suspicion arises against the accused warranting framing of charge against him therefore, the accused stands discharged for the offences alleged.”
In an order passed on December 6, the court said the averments made by the woman in her recorded statement were “vastly different” from the allegations in her complaint.
According to the complaint, the accused raped her when she had gone to the accused’s house to work as a maid on March 15, 2018, the court noted.
The next day the prosecutrix again went to the accused’s house and following his misbehaviour, filed a complaint mentioning his name, it noted.
The recorded statement, however, said that the prosecutrix did not know the accused employer’s name and that he raped her after she refused to withdraw some money from an ATM on his behalf, the court noted.
There were also contradictions in both versions regarding the date and manner of making the police complaint, it noted.
The court noted the submissions of lawyer Verma that the rape FIR were “merely a counterblast” to the theft case registered by the man against the complainant on March 16, 2018.
It further noted the advocate’s submissions underlining that the Delhi High Court while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in June 2018, had observed that the complaint needed to be examined thoroughly on several aspects.
These included whether the complainant had filed a false and frivolous complaint along with the facts about the recovery of money from her house and that she refused to undergo a medical examination, the court noted.
Also Read
Agreeing with the averments, the court said that Delhi Police did not conduct a thorough examination of the complaint before filing its charge sheet.
Regarding the FIR filed by the accused, the court noted that when the IO went to his house on March 16, 2018, the police official found that the accused and the prosecutrix were quarrelling over some monetary issue.
At that time, the complainant did not allege rape, it said adding, later Rs 12,900 was recovered from the prosecutrix’s house, for which she could not provide any satisfactory answer.
The court said the first call made to the police was by the accused and even in the PCR call made by the prosecutrix, the information provided was not of rape but of ‘ched chaad’ (eve-teasing).
