The Tis Hazari Sessions Court in Delhi has issued a directive to initiate criminal proceedings against a woman who was found to have fabricated a rape allegation with the intent of extorting money from the accused.
In delivering the acquittal, Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal underscored that the prosecutrix manipulated the accused under the pretense of a prospective matrimonial alliance, subsequently misusing legal processes to serve ulterior motives.
Jurisprudential Framework
The judgment commenced with a citation from American criminal defense attorney F. Lee Bailey: “In court, the truth is often lost in the process. The oath is meant to protect it, but men lie, even under God.” Judge Agrawal contextualized this aphorism within the framework of the present case, stating: “The above adage squarely applies to the case herein, as we would see while I pen out this judgment.”
Legal Exoneration
Upon meticulous evaluation of the evidentiary material, the court acquitted the defendant and concurrently directed the institution of perjury proceedings against the complainant for willfully making false statements under oath.
As the judge articulated: “An acquittal would not serve the interest of justice, as the law must not only punish the guilty but also protect the dignity of an innocent.” He further stated: “It is evident from the record that the prosecutrix lied under oath, destroying the trust on which justice stands.”
The court ordered that the complaint under perjury provisions be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Central District).
Genesis Of Allegation
The prosecution contended that the woman had initially connected with the accused through a matrimonial platform in 2021.
Following a sequence of online interactions, they met physically in September of the same year. The complainant alleged that during their first meeting, the accused sexually assaulted her in his car and illicitly captured nude photographs. In response to her protest, the accused allegedly assured her of his intention to marry and committed to deleting the photographs.
Subsequently, she claimed that on October 14, 2021, the accused visited her residence where he purportedly engaged in non-consensual vaginal and anal intercourse and repeated the act of photographing her.
However, forensic analysis of the accused’s mobile device did not reveal any of the alleged photographic evidence.
Evidentiary Assessment
The court characterized the complainant’s testimony as replete with contradictions and structural inconsistencies. It described her narrative as inherently implausible and evidently concocted. Judge Agrawal remarked: “False rape accusations not only put unnecessary load on the overflowing dockets but also cause grave injustice to actual rape victims.”
Procedural Anomalies & Police Complicity
The judgment further critiqued procedural lapses during the investigation. Notably, the accused was apprehended prior to the formal registration of the First Information Report (FIR), a procedural deviation tantamount to unlawful arrest. Additionally, the court flagged a troubling pattern of communication between the complainant and law enforcement officials—evidenced by 16 to 17 recorded telephonic interactions between September 18 and October 24, 2021—which suggested a collaborative nexus aimed at coercive extortion.
While refraining from ordering disciplinary sanctions, the court deferred to the administrative prerogative of the Delhi Police Commissioner, urging an internal inquiry to uphold the institutional ethos of ‘Shanti, Seva, Nyay’ (Peace, Service, Justice).
Sociocultural Implications Of False Allegations
In reflecting upon the broader societal ramifications, the court warned that the social stigma attached to accusations of sexual assault often outlives the legal resolution. Judge Agrawal remarked: “A false accusation of rape/sexual assault leaves an indelible impression upon the social psyche which no judicial imprimatur can remove.”
Normative Significance & Judicial Equilibrium
Through the dual mechanisms of acquittal and prosecutorial recommendation for perjury, the court sought to reassert judicial equilibrium, safeguarding innocent citizens while deterring the weaponization of sexual offence laws. This case serves as a critical precedent reinforcing the judiciary’s dual obligation: to administer justice impartially and to guard against its subversion through malicious prosecution.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
