Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal In Rape Case Where Accused & Victim Were In A Relationship
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom has upheld an order of acquittal of a 21-year-old man accused of raping a 20-year-old woman after noting that the each of them had been in a relationship and it was a transparent case of consent.
The Excessive Courtroom was contemplating an attraction filed by the State difficult the acquittal of a sole accused in a case registered underneath Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Part 67 of the Data Expertise Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas stated, “Upon contemplating stated proof on document and on reappraisal of the identical, we’re additionally of the agency view that each the accused and the sufferer had an affair with one another which is evident from the images and if in any respect there may be any sexual activity between each of them that it’s consensual sexual activity that came about with a clear consent of the sufferer and no offence of any rape or the offence of legal intimidation was dedicated by the accused. Because the video stated to have been recorded by the accused will not be seized and accessible on document, the offence underneath Part 67 of the Data and Expertise Act can be not proved.”
“It signifies that there was no resistance from her even when her garments had been stripped off. This circumstance clearly and clinchingly proves that she has voluntarily accompanied the accused and if at all there may be any sexual activity between each of them that it was a consensual sexual activity between each of them and it’s a clear case of consent. We’ve got already observed that she is a serious woman aged about 20 years”, the Bench added.
Further Public Prosecutor Bhargav Pandya represented the Appellant whereas Advocate Shrikar H Bhatt represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the accused had taken the sufferer on to the terrace of a constructing and had forcible sexual activity with her towards her consent and thereby raped her. He had stripped off her garments and had taken her video on his cellular. He allegedly threatened the sufferer woman of dire penalties if she disclosed the incident to anybody and likewise threatened to make the stated video viral.
The sufferer lodged a report with the police three months after the date of the incident. On medical examination, the medical doctors did not discover any indicators or proof of forcible sexual activity or rape. On the finish of the trial, the trial court docket discovered the accused not responsible of the stated costs and acquitted him. Aggrieved thereby, the State approached the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
The Bench famous that although it was said by the sufferer in her examination-in-chief that she was taken by the accused to the terrace, nevertheless, within the cross-examination she said that the accused didn’t take her to the terrace. “Thus, she has prevaricated from her assertion given in her examination-in-chief in her cross examination. This inconsistency in her proof concerning the allegation that she was taken by the accused on to the terrace proves that the stated allegation made by her within the FIR and her examination-in-chief that the accused took her to the terrace is completely false”, it stated.
On a perusal of the proof, the Bench discovered that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused onto the terrace. “The Mayka Institute of Millenium Advanced market is a public place which is located reverse to MK School in a busy locality. It’s unbelievable to state that the accused has forcibly took her on the terrace of stated complicated which is in a market place and that too throughout day time at 9:30 a.m. within the morning. So, it clearly signifies and proves that she has voluntarily accompanied the accused on to the terrace of the stated complicated in the course of the day time”, it added.
Neither any damage was discovered on her physique nor any signal of rape was talked about within the medical experiences. It was additional observed that the each of them knew one another as they had been residing in the identical neighborhood. There was additionally an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.
“Although each delay in lodging the FIR will not be deadly to the case of the prosecution, the court docket expects some clarification from the prosecutrix in lodging the report with such an inordinate delay of three months. No clarification is forthcoming to elucidate the stated delay. Subsequently, her silence for a interval of three months, absence of damage on her physique, absence of resistance from her, absence of any medical proof referring to forcible sexual activity or rape clearly proves that there was no offence of rape dedicated on the sufferer PW-14”, the bench held.
Discovering the impugned judgment to be completely sustainable in legislation, the Bench dismissed the attraction.
Trigger Title: State of Gujarat v. Virendrasinh Ajitsinh Makwana (Impartial Quotation: 2025:GUJHC:35141-DB)
Look
Petitioner: Further Public Prosecutor Bhargav Pandya
Respondent: Advocate Shrikar H Bhatt
