Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delhi court acquits two in gang-rape case

Delhi court acquits two in gang-rape case

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jan 21, 2013   modified Modified on Jan 21, 2013
-The Hindu

A fast-track court here trying rape cases has acquitted two men accused by a married woman of luring her away from her home and then gang-raping her after administering her an intoxicating substance. She also accused the men of selling her for Rs.20,000 and that she escaped and returned to her matrimonial home.

Additional Sessions Judge T. R. Naval acquitted the men of all charges and cited 10 reasons why the men deserved the benefit of the doubt. The first reason the court cited was that the testimony of the woman had several “material contradictions” and that her statement was “self-contradictory, unreliable and untrustworthy which has demolished the prosecution case”.

The court said her version on leaving her home, gang-rape, being served intoxicants, being sold, and then her escape differed significantly when she was cross-examined. She could not say for certain if she was raped as she was drugged while earlier she had specifically alleged rape. Her reason for leaving home varied in her statement to the police and later in court. While to the police she said that one of the accused men had offered to marry her, in court she said that the accused Om Prakash had offered to drop her at her parents’ home.

The court also noted differences in her version on what she did after she escaped. To the police she said she had disclosed everything to her father-in-law and reported the matter at Anand Vihar police station the next day, whereas in court she said she stayed with her husband for 2-3 days and then reported the offence to the police.

The second reason was the absence of any other material witness besides the prosecutrix herself. The third reason was that none of her family members supported the prosecution case. The investigating officer told the court that their statements were not recorded because of their non-cooperation. The fourth reason was the absence of scientific evidence to prove her case as she returned and spent some days with her husband before approaching the police. The fifth reason was the prosecutrix “unnatural conduct” in not informing her family members before leaving or taking any clothes along or her two-year-old girl child along.

The sixth reason was the 2-3 day delay in registering the FIR. “Prosecutrix admitted that after return from the captivity of accused Mahesh (a proclaimed offender), she stayed with her husband for two or three days and then reported the matter to the police. The delay has further created doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case,” the court said. The seventh reason was existence of legal precedents which favoured the accused in cases where evidence showed the presence of two possibilities and one of these gives the benefit of doubt to the accused.

“The eighth reason of my decision is that as the accused has succeeded in creating doubt in prosecution case, so he is entitled to get benefit of doubt. The ninth reason of my decision is that this court finds it difficult to believe testimony of prosecutrix and prosecution witnesses. It is one of the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that let hundreds of criminal may go unpunished but one innocent person should not be punished. It would be just fair and appropriate, if accused persons are given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them beyond any suspicion or reasonable shadow of doubt. This is last reason of my decision,” Mr. Naval said.

The Hindu, 21 January, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/delhi-court-acquits-two-in-gangrape-case/article4327528.ece


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close