Prosecutrix Had Consensual Physical Relation With Accused, Targeted Her Husband & In-Laws Due To Matrimonial Issues: Delhi HC While Upholding Acquittal Order

Finding that no document or scientific opinion has been placed on record nor any witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the age of the prosecutrix, and neither the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the respondents, the Delhi High Court acquitted a man and his mother of charges of kidnapping, abduction, rape, criminal intimidation, and wrongful confinement.

The Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “The conduct of prosecutrix depicts that she had consensual physical relationship with respondent No.1-accused. It seems prosecutrix due to matrimonial issues, has targeted her husband i.e. respondent No.1 and her mother-in-law i.e. respondent No.2, as the complaint in question has been filed after a gap of two years and that too, when prosecutrix was already blessed with a daughter”.

Advocate Tarang Srivastava appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Dilip Singh appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the prosecutrix had alleged that the respondent No.1/accused had proposed her for friendship, however, when she declined, he felt offended and one day, he forcibly put her in a car and committed rape upon her. It was further alleged that that the first respondent/ accused had promised to marry her and, on this assurance, he took her to Mukundpur and kept her in illegal confinement, where he daily raped her. The prosecutrix became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. The prosecutrix later revealed the entire incident to her mother, leading to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court's direction prompted the registration of the FIR. Subsequently, the Sessions court framed charges against respondent under Sections 363/366/376/377/506(ii) IPC and Section 344, along with Section 34 IPC. Meanwhile, second respondent (prosecutrix’s mother-in-law), faced charges under Section 342 and Section 120-B IPC, as well as Sections 344/34 IPC. However, based on the evidence and material presented during the proceedings, the Sessions court acquitted the respondents of the charges brought against them.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that the evidence presented in the case indicated that the prosecutrix was married to first respondent/accused.

However, the crucial question to be decided was whether the prosecutrix had been compelled or coerced into marrying the accused, added the Bench.

The Bench found from a copy of the complaint made by the prosecutrix to the ACP, CAW Cell, that she had lodged a complaint regarding dowry demands made by her husband and in-laws, and in the complaint, she expressed her desire to take legal action against them and also mentioned her intention to separate from them.

Furthermore, the counsellor had testified before the trial court that second respondent had filed a complaint against her daughter-in-law, the prosecutrix, and had mentioned that the dispute between them could not be resolved because the prosecutrix was unwilling to return to her matrimonial home.

The Bench also noted significant contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix, which were recorded under Sections 164 CrPC and 161 CrPC, as well as her statements made before the Court.

For instance, during her statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate, the prosecutrix claimed that she had been forcibly married to accused by his family members, whereas in her court testimony, she did not mention the aspect of her marriage, added the Bench.

The Bench observed that the conduct of the prosecutrix indicated that she had engaged in a consensual physical relationship with the accused, and possibly due to matrimonial issues, had implicated her husband and her mother-in-law, by filing a complaint after a two-year gap.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the Trial court's decision to acquit the respondents, by giving them the benefit of doubt for the charged offenses, was appropriate.

Cause Title: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mahadev @ Sharad and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 6549-DB]

Click here to read/download the Judgment