Rape victim made 529 calls to the accused prior to filing of complaint: High Court has acquitted the accused [Read the Order]

May 23, 2019:

Delhi High Court found a rape case highly unbelievable as there were several inconsistencies in the verson the victim including the facts that she had made several calls to the accused.

A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sehgal has passed the order in the case titled as Rachna Singh vs State on 13.05.2019.

In a rape case, the trial court acquitted the accused. His Acquittal was challenged before the High Court. However, the High Court found that the case was ‘highly unreliable’, ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘inspires no confidence’. The reasons provided by the High Court are:

A. The appellant-prosecutrix alleged that she had received an invitation to attend a seminar on 13th December, 2016 at IIM, Noida. However, 13th December, 2016 was a gazetted holiday on the occasion of Milad- Un-Nabi (Birthday of Mohammad). Furthermore, the RTI reply sent by IIM, Noida stated that on account of the gazetted holiday, there was no seminar scheduled for 13th December, 2016 and they had not sent any invitation to the appellant-prosecutrix.

B. There is a major contradiction in the statement of the appellant prosecutrix inasmuch as, in the written complaint dated 05th January, 2017 made to the DCP, Dwarka, and the complaint dated 17th January, 2017 to the SHO PS Pahar Ganj, the appellant-prosecutrix had not mentioned that she had come in contact with the accused-respondent no. 2 through LinkedIn for the purpose of research work. However, she has mentioned the aforesaid fact in her statement before the Court.

C. The appellant-prosecutrix had submitted her I.D. proof to the hotel and in the same she had mentioned her address of Aligarh, UP as Delhi Police Guidelines do not permit the hotel to allot a room to a local Delhi resident.

D. The entrance of the hotel room is manned by security guards 24 hours and no one can enter the hotel without the permission of the guard. The appellant-prosecutrix could have easily come out of the hotel room to make a call to the police or raise an alarm or could have requested any of the hotel staff to make a call. The appellant prosecutrix is mobile and does not suffer from such a serious disability that she could not have raised an alarm.

E. There is no evidence placed on record to suggest that the appellant prosecutrix was administered intoxicating substance and its effect lasted for three days.

F. On 15th December, 2016 after the alleged incident, the accusedrespondent no. 2 allegedly took the appellant-prosecutrix to Shivaji Stadium Metro Station. There he admittedly returned her belongings, including her mobile phone. It is highly improbable that the appellantprosecutrix, being a daughter of a retired Commandant of CRPF and herself being a Professor, could not make call to the police or any other person after receiving her mobile phone.

G. There is a delay of 32 days in filing the FIR, according to the Trial Court or at least 20 days as admitted by the appellant-prosecutrix. According to the appellant-prosecutrix, there was a delay as her brother was abroad. But such an alibi on the part of the appellantprosecutrix is difficult to accept as appellant-prosecutrix is an educated lady who is gainfully employed as a Professor in a university.

H. The appellant-prosecutrix also did not hand over her mobile phone to the I.O. The appellant-prosecutrix deposed that the police during investigation did not ask for it. However, the I.O, who deposed as PW11, stated that she had asked the appellant-prosecutrix to hand over her mobile phone but she refused to do so.

I. Appellant-prosecutrix had made 529 calls to accused-respondent no.2 between 16th December, 2016 (after the date of rape) to 29th January, 2017 (before filing of the complaint). Her act of making so many repeated calls is not consistent with her allegations.

High Court then dismissed the appeal.

Read the order here:

Picture Source :