New Delhi, Sep 12 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has upheld trial court’s order acquitting a man accused of forcibly keeping a minor girl in his house and repeatedly raping her.
A division bench ofJustices Suresh Kumar Kait amd Neena Krishna Bansal said that while the testimony of the victim alone can establish guilt in a rape case, it must consider the overall facts and circumstances of the case to arrive at a just decision.
The State had filed an appeal against the trial court’s order. It was dimissed by the bench.
The court stated that the prosecution not only failed to provide the exact age of the prosecutrix but also couldn’t prove that the accused had forcibly engaged in physical relations with her.
The court made observations regarding the victim’s behaviour, noting that she had visited the accused’s native village, claiming to be his wife, and did not raise any alarm on earlier occasions.
This led the court to suggest that a “false accusation” could not be ruled out.
The accused had faced criminal proceedings based on an FIR for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including rape, and the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO).
The court also upheld the acquittal of the accused’s father in the matter, granting him the “benefit of doubt.”
Furthermore, the bench found it highly unbelievable that the victim claimed the accused had sexual relations with her on three occasions in a public park, yet she neither raised an alarm nor did anyone in the public notice the incidents.
The court also pointed out that the house had two doors, windows, and ventilators at her height level, but she did not make any effort to escape, suggesting that she willingly continued to live in the accused’s house for 27 days.
The court said that the prosecution had not presented any document to establish the correct age of the prosecutrix, who initially claimed to be 17 years old and later stated in court that she was 19.
Her complainant brother claimed she was 12 years old.
The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.