After over 9 years, the Delhi’s Tis Hazari District court has acquitted a man charged with rape, citing that the victim’s testimonies were neither clear nor credible and lacked corroboration with other material evidence.
Additional Sessions Judge Priyanka Bhagat was hearing the case against Mahender, who was charged by Subzi Mandi police under provisions of rape and criminal intimidation.
The prosecutrix claimed that in 2014, Mahender took her to Nainital, spiked her food, raped her while she was unconscious, and filmed the act. She alleged that upon returning to Delhi, Mahender threatened to circulate the video and raped her again at an under-construction building, keeping her confined.
The court’s verdict on July 9 stated, “The testimonies of prosecution witness 12 or victim are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and the same are not corroborated by other material evidence.”
“For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Mahender is hereby acquitted,” the bench said.
The court highlighted major contradictions in the victim’s statements regarding the spiking of her food, which undermined her credibility. It also noted that the prosecution did not produce the alleged video evidence.
Concerning the rape allegations at the under-construction building, the court pointed out that other workers were present when the victim claimed the assault occurred, making her story improbable. Additionally, the victim did not immediately report the incident or seek help from the people present, further discrediting her claims.
Regarding the alleged wrongful confinement from November 11 to 15, 2014, the court noted the victim’s contradictory statements and her admission that she had access to Mahender’s mobile phone, which she did not use to seek outside help. This was corroborated by a recorded conversation between the victim and Mahender’s brother-in-law, Gopal Krishan, proving she had falsely implicated him.
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to present a consistent and corroborated case, stating, “The contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the statements of witnesses create serious doubts about the prosecution story. The version brought on record by the victim is not even corroborated by any other evidence brought on record.”
