Man acquitted in rape case after victim found ‘very happy’ in wedding reception

According to the prosecution case, the father of the girl had given a complaint to police on May 14, 2023, that on May 12, his daughter aged 15 years, had left the house without informing anyone, and that the accused had enticed her away on the pretext of marriage. After the complaint, police registered an FIR and in an ossification test, found the victim’s bone age to be 15-16 years, and dental age 14-16-years.

A chargesheet was filed by the police against the accused under sections 363 (kidnapping) and 376 (2) (n) (rape), of the IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused did not plead guilty.

During the trial, the defence counsel argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case, and the father and the victim statements were contradictory before different authorities and not reliable.

The prosecution, however, argued that the testimony of the victim clearly establishes that she was enticed by the accused, taken forcibly from her guardians custody, and during the victim’s custody for two years, the accused developed forcible sexual relations with her multiple times.

After hearing the matter, the Additional District and Sessions Judge held: “by applying the margin of error of principle of two years to the estimated age of victim, which is 15 to 16 and a half, the victim is held to be more than 18 years of age at the time of her examination… so if we presume the date of the offence as May 12, 2023, then at that time, the age of victim was more than 18 years”.

In the absence of any documentary evidence like school record and Municipal Corporation record, the court observed that it cannot be said that the girl was minor on the date of occurrence of the incident, adding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor when she performed the marriage with the accused.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Dr Yashika noted that cross-examination proved that her house is situated only at a distance of 5-6 houses from the house of the accused, thereby she had every opportunity to go to her house immediately after the marriage.

“Otherwise also from the marriage and reception photographs, in which she is looking very happy,” the judgment noted.

“As far as the allegations of victim that she had been ravished by the accused is concerned, then here the girl was a grown-up, who could not be proved to be a child, and in such circumstances, had she been subjected to rape by the accused and/or any such sexual intercourse would have taken place against her wishes, she had every opportunity to raise alarm, but she never opted for the same suggesting the court that she had been a consenting party in establishing physical relations with the accused, if any.”

Finding material contradictions in between the statement of the victim and her father, the court said that it creates doubt on the prosecution story.

“In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out and it seems that the victim and her father have twisted the story while attributing the offence of enticing her away by the accused. In such circumstances, the one and the only inference which can be drawn from the conduct of the victim is that she herself had slipped along with the accused and had never been kidnapped by him with any intention to force her for any illicit intercourse etc,” the court noted in its verdict.