Man convicted of rape found not guilty after 20 years in prison

Agra, March 2: A man in Uttar Pradesh who was convicted of rape spent more than two decades in prison but was found innocent. Vishnu Tiwari was 23 years old when a court found him guilty of raping a woman and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It happened in the year 2000. After 20 long years, the Allahabad High Court has declared Vishnu Tiwari innocent and he will soon be released from prison. Indian times reported. Hathras: Out on bail, rape accused shoots victim’s father.

Also read | Consensual sex between live-in partners cannot be classified as rape if the man does not keep his marriage vows, the Supreme Court says

Vishnu, a school dropout, lived in Lalitpur village with his father and two brothers. He did odd jobs to help his family financially. In September 2000, a scheduled caste woman living in Silawan village alleged that Vishnu had raped her. Police have booked him for rape, criminal intimidation and sexual exploitation of a SC woman. A court found him guilty and he was given a life sentence. Consensual sex between live-in partners cannot be classified as rape if the man does not keep his marriage vows, the Supreme Court says.

Since Vishnu came from a poor family, he could not afford to hire a lawyer. In 2005, it gathered its reserves and challenged its convection. However, he received no relief. Even when his father died, he was not allowed to attend his last rites. Previously, he had not been able to attend his brothers’ funeral. Eventually, the State Legal Services Authority came to his rescue and the verdict was challenged in the Allahabad High Court last year.

Also read | Uttar Pradesh: Man who cheated a lakhs woman living in Hyderabad on the pretext of marriage arrested in Bareilly

According to the TOI According to reports, on January 28 this year, a bench of Justices Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chaudhary declared him innocent. The high court’s verdict was based on the findings that the FIR was lodged three days late and there were no injuries in the woman’s private parts. The judges also found that there was “a motive on the part of the applicant that there was a land dispute between the parties”.