The Delhi’s Patiala House Special Court has acquitted a 68-year-old man and 2 others in a rape case, ruling that the charges were based on false and inconsistent statements made by the complainant.
The court cited serious contradictions in the woman’s testimony and criticized the investigation for being “casual and reckless.”
Furthermore, “Testimony Fails to Inspire Confidence.”
In a strongly worded judgment, the court stated, “Upon careful scrutiny of the facts and evidence, and guided by established legal principles, this court finds the testimony of the prosecutrix riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies… It would be highly unsafe to convict the accused based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.”
The complainant had alleged that her father-in-law, who was 68 years old at the time, raped her and forced her to consume a poisonous substance, commonly referred to as “All Out.”
Defense Points To Marital Discord, Lack Of Evidence
Advocate Ravi Drall, who represented the accused, argued that the complaint was a result of marital tensions exaggerated into a criminal allegation.
“It is inconceivable that a 68-year-old man, who is physically incapacitated, could commit such an act against a woman 40 years younger than him,” Drall told the court.
He also highlighted several discrepancies in the complainant’s account. Despite being well-educated, the woman was unable to recall the exact date of the alleged assault, even though she remembered other events from the same time period. This raised serious questions about the reliability of her statements.
Medical & Forensic Evidence Contradicted Claims
The court also noted that the forensic evidence did not support the allegation of poisoning. Medical tests on the complainant revealed no trace of poison, alcohol, or pesticides in her system. The chemical analysis of the gastric lavage sample, conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), came back negative.
Court Criticizes Investigation
In its verdict, the court also criticized the investigating officer (IO) for mishandling the case.
“The investigation in this case has been conducted very casually and recklessly,” the court noted, adding that call detail records and mobile location data, which could have been crucial, were never collected despite being requested.
The judgment also raised broader concerns about misuse of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (rape) in matrimonial disputes:
“In matrimonial cases, there is an increasing tendency of filing complaints for offence under Section 376 IPC against in-laws or male members of the husband’s family just to exert pressure on the entire family.”
Verdict
After examining all the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, the court acquitted all three accused individuals, concluding that the prosecution’s case did not meet the required standard of proof.
The ruling underscores the importance of thorough investigation and credible evidence in sensitive cases involving serious criminal charges.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
