Delhi court acquits man accused of rape 9 years ago because no credible witness testimony was available

New Delhi: More than nine years after he was charged with rape, a local court has acquitted a man. It said the alleged victim’s statements were neither clear, coherent, credible nor trustworthy, nor were her allegations substantiated by other evidence.

Additional Sessions Judge Priyanka Bhagat of Tis Hazari District Court was hearing a case against Mahender against whom Subzi Mandi police station had filed an FIR under the Penal Code for rape and criminal intimidation.

According to the plaintiff, Mahender took her to Nainital in 2014, where he stuffed food into her skin, raped her after she lost consciousness, and filmed the act.

She alleged that after the woman returned to Delhi, the accused threatened to circulate the video clip and then raped her again in an under-construction building after locking her up.

“…The statements of the prosecution witness 12 or the victim are not clear, coherent, credible and trustworthy, nor are they corroborated by other evidence,” the court said in its July 9 verdict.

“For the above reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused Mahender is hereby acquitted,” the court said.

The court stressed that the prosecution’s entire argument was based on the woman’s testimony and said that her version of the incident in which food was thrust into her flesh contained significant contradictions, which affected the credibility of her statements.

There have also been some improvements in their statements, it was said.

“The prosecution fully believes that the complainant was repeatedly raped due to the blackmail of the accused Mahender by circulating the said video. However, the said video was never produced as evidence by the prosecution,” the court said.

Regarding the allegations of rape in the building under construction, the court took note of the statement of the alleged victim in which she admitted that other persons working there were also present when she met Mahender.

“Therefore, the plaintiff’s version that she was raped in a building where other people also worked is unlikely, especially if the plaintiff was also crying, as stated in her complaint,” it said.

The court said there was no explanation as to why the woman did not complain to the people working there or report it to the police immediately. This refutes her version that she was raped under the threat of distributing the obscene video in question.

Regarding the alleged incident of unlawful deprivation of liberty from 11 to 15 November 2014, the court again noted her “contradictory statements”.

It states that the alleged victim admitted that she had access to Mahender’s mobile phone during the alleged detention and therefore had every opportunity to seek outside help, but she did not do so, which discredits her testimony.

The court said that during her alleged detention, she called the accused’s brother-in-law, Gopal Krishan, who recorded the conversation.

It was found that the said recording was retrieved from the said mobile phone and the voices of the complainant and Krishan were duly proven by the prosecution itself on the basis of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

“This conversation also confirms that the complainant moved in with the accused Mahender on her own initiative and when the accused stopped living with her, she called the accused’s brother-in-law, namely Gopal Krishan, and subsequently falsely incriminated the brother-in-law as well,” the court said.

It recorded the reply of a sub-inspector that the public prosecutor was trying to persuade Krishan to allow her to meet Mahender, otherwise she would name him in the rape case.

The court said the witness’s testimony must be natural, support the charges and be of such quality that there is not the slightest doubt about it.

“The contradictions and inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements raise serious doubts about the prosecution’s version of events. The version presented by the victim is not confirmed by any other evidence,” the report said.