NEW DELHI, June 5: A Delhi court has acquitted an Army officer and his friend of rape charge, citing the complainant’s “unreliable” testimony.
Additional Sessions Judge Gagandeep Jindal highlighted the contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, besides the absence of forensic or medical evidence to prove the allegations and an unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police.
While the colonel was booked under Sections 376 (2) (n) (repeated raped), 328 (causing hurt by means of posion etc.), and 506 (criminal intimidation), both men faced Section 376 D (gang rape) of IPC.
Related Posts:
In an order dated May 30, and made available on June 2, the court said, “Solitary, uncorroborated and unreliable testimony of the complainant cannot be taken as a gospel truth on its face value in the absence of corroboration from any other independent cogent evidence….prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Referring to the complainant’s version, the court noted that the first incident of rape took place in October 2016 in Delhi and last incident occurred in August 2021, but the matter was reported to police in November 2021.
“There is a delay of more than five years from the first incident and delay of more than three months from the last incident of rape, in reporting the matter to police. The prosecution had tried to explain the delay by contending that the accused was having an obscene video of the complainant recorded by him on October 28, 2016,” the court said.
The court, however, said no such video was found during the investigation, and even the forensic analysis of the Army officer’s cell phone did not reveal any such video.
The order added, “The complainant is an advocate by profession. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was not aware of her legal rights. It is hard to believe that she continued to be a victim of circumstances for five years and simultaneously continued to provide legal advice to the accused.”
Pointing out the substantial delay in reporting the matter to police, the court observed the framing of the accused persons couldn’t be ruled out, particularly given a dispute over the payment of the complainant’s professional fee by the Army officer.
Advocate Abimanyu Kumar from Tripaksha appeared for the Army officer. (PTI)
