New Delhi, Feb 27: A Delhi court has acquitted an army officer accused of raping a woman under the pretext of marriage, stating that a promise of marriage cannot be considered an inducement for sex over an indefinite period. The officer was also charged with unnatural offenses and allegedly forcing the woman to undergo two abortions.
In a verdict delivered on January 25, Additional Sessions Judge Gajender Singh Nagar emphasized that while an inducement to engage in a physical relationship based on a marriage promise might be understandable in the heat of the moment, it cannot justify continued sexual relations over a prolonged period. The court noted that the allegations lacked substantive proof and that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable.
The court ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to establish that the officer had engaged in non-consensual relations with the complainant. It stated, "The accused did not make physical relations, if any, with the prosecutrix forcefully against her will and consent. Rather, she was a willing party to the said act."
Pointing to inconsistencies in the allegations, the court found discrepancies regarding the alleged rape incident on February 13, 2014. The prosecution claimed the act took place at the woman's rented accommodation. However, official records showed that the officer was sanctioned leave between February 14 and 15, raising doubts about his presence in Delhi on the date in question.
The court also questioned the complainant’s claim of being raped on February 13 but still accompanying the accused to Manali, where she alleged another assault. "It is very strange that despite being raped, the prosecutrix agreed to visit Manali alone with the accused, stayed in the same room, and became pregnant, but did not inform her family," the judgment noted.
Additionally, the court found no scientific or medical evidence to substantiate the woman's claims of pregnancy and abortion. It also highlighted inconsistencies regarding her alleged second pregnancy after the officer reportedly refused to marry her in 2015.
The complainant reportedly accused multiple individuals involved in the case, including investigating officers, a doctor, a counselor, and even the metropolitan magistrate, of suppressing facts. The court found this improbable, stating, "It cannot be presumed that everyone, including the doctor and the magistrate, would prevent the prosecutrix from stating the complete facts."
With multiple inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and lack of medical or forensic evidence, the court ruled in favor of the accused, stating that no case of rape had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the legal standpoint that a promise of marriage cannot serve as a blanket justification for alleging sexual exploitation over a prolonged period.
In a verdict delivered on January 25, Additional Sessions Judge Gajender Singh Nagar emphasized that while an inducement to engage in a physical relationship based on a marriage promise might be understandable in the heat of the moment, it cannot justify continued sexual relations over a prolonged period. The court noted that the allegations lacked substantive proof and that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and unreliable.
Court Finds Accusations Unsubstantiated
The court ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to establish that the officer had engaged in non-consensual relations with the complainant. It stated, "The accused did not make physical relations, if any, with the prosecutrix forcefully against her will and consent. Rather, she was a willing party to the said act."
Pointing to inconsistencies in the allegations, the court found discrepancies regarding the alleged rape incident on February 13, 2014. The prosecution claimed the act took place at the woman's rented accommodation. However, official records showed that the officer was sanctioned leave between February 14 and 15, raising doubts about his presence in Delhi on the date in question.
Doubts Over Pregnancy and Abortion Claims
The court also questioned the complainant’s claim of being raped on February 13 but still accompanying the accused to Manali, where she alleged another assault. "It is very strange that despite being raped, the prosecutrix agreed to visit Manali alone with the accused, stayed in the same room, and became pregnant, but did not inform her family," the judgment noted.
Additionally, the court found no scientific or medical evidence to substantiate the woman's claims of pregnancy and abortion. It also highlighted inconsistencies regarding her alleged second pregnancy after the officer reportedly refused to marry her in 2015.
Accusations Against Investigators and Court Officials
The complainant reportedly accused multiple individuals involved in the case, including investigating officers, a doctor, a counselor, and even the metropolitan magistrate, of suppressing facts. The court found this improbable, stating, "It cannot be presumed that everyone, including the doctor and the magistrate, would prevent the prosecutrix from stating the complete facts."
Verdict and Conclusion
With multiple inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and lack of medical or forensic evidence, the court ruled in favor of the accused, stating that no case of rape had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the legal standpoint that a promise of marriage cannot serve as a blanket justification for alleging sexual exploitation over a prolonged period.
Last updated by a enewsx:
