The Aurangabad Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and chargesheet against a man while stating that it is difficult to believe that a widow with two children in a populated residential locality was forcefully raped several times.
The accused had approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR and chargesheet after a woman filed a complaint against him. The woman, who lost her husband on March 18, 2017, alleged that on July 13 that year when she was with her children, the applicant came to her house on the pretext of drinking water, brandished a knife and threatened to kill her. It was also alleged that he raped the woman.
The victim in her complaint also stated that the accused had demanded money from her. However, when the victim refused, the accused allegedly took away her ornaments and told her he would mortgage them with a jeweller. Further, the FIR stated that the victim was raped on multiple occasions and was also beaten up.
The counsel for the accused argued before the court that the FIR is belated, false, and full of baseless allegations. He submitted that the woman is a widow with two children and resides in a thickly populated locality. He said the victim and accused knew each other for a long time. He also contended that the jeweller’s statement shows that the ornaments were mortgaged on her insistence.
Further, it was argued that the statement of her parents showed they were ignorant about the alleged incidents and she did not herself visit them at any point nor allowed them to visit her.
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the victim was raped multiple times at knifepoint and that her ornaments were forcefully taken away. He informed the court that the victim had shown courage and lodged an FIR and there is ample material against the accused.
The counsel for the victim argued that she was raped on multiple occasions and the applicant had threatened to kill her and the children. He submitted that the investigation is over and the chargesheet was filed and, therefore, the applicant must be made to face trial.
The division bench noted that the FIR was filed after six months by the victim. Further, the supplementary statement showed that the victim had stated that the applicant regularly visited her house and even came to her help at times. It showed that she had even entrusted her ATM card with the accused. Therefore, there was room to presume that there was a long-standing association between the man and the widow even when her husband was alive, the bench noted.
The court also observed that the statement of the jeweller showed that he knew the accused and the victim, and that the latter herself mortgaged her ornaments.
“Surprisingly informant’s (the woman’s) parents have also given statement to police that their daughter was residing separately and neither visited them nor allowed them to come to her house and as such, they were completely unaware of any incident that took place,” the court said.
The bench said it is difficult to accept that the widow was raped in a populated locality. “We are of considered opinion that apart from inordinate delay in lodging FIR, the allegations of rape levelled against the applicant (the accused man) do not inspire confidence… It is difficult to accept that a widow with two children residing in a thickly populated residential locality could be forcibly raped not once but on several occasions.”
Quashing the FIR and chargesheet, the court said: “In our considered opinion, whatever sexual encounters took place between informant (the woman) and applicant (accused man) apparently seem to be consensual one, in the light of above discussed reasons. Therefore, making present applicant face trial with such allegations would render him not only hardship but great injustice.”
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment