Delhi HC acquits man in rape case

The Delhi High Court has set aside a seven-year jail term awarded to a man in a rape case after noting "vital discrepancies" in the victim's statement.
A bench of Justice S P Garg held that it was not safe to convict the man on the "sole uncorroborated testimony" of the alleged victim and "benefit of doubt" should be given to the accused.
The High Court passed the order while setting aside the July 2006 order of a trial court which had held the man guilty primarily on the basis of the girl's testimony and was awarded the 7-year jail term and a fine of Rs 5,000.

"In the instant case, considering vital discrepancies, contradictions and infirmities in statements of prosecution witnesses, it is not safe to convict the appellant on the sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix (victim). The appellant (man) deserves benefit of doubt," the bench said.
The high court also noted that on scanning the girl's testimony, it transpired that she had changed her version at different stages of the trial and was not at all "consistent" and a number of discrepancies, infirmities and improvements emerged therein making it unsafe to base conviction.
While noting the submissions made by defence counsel Alok Bhachawat, it also said that the alleged victim's medical examination after about 20 days had no significance.

According to the prosecution, the girl's father on July 3, 2002, had lodged a missing report for her daughter suspecting the man and his wife's involvement in her kidnapping since she was missing for the past two days.

Later, the girl, after being recovered from Patel Nagar area of West Delhi, said that on the night of June 12-13, 2002, the accused had raped the alleged victim in Tilak Nagar, about 10 kms from there, after being administered some intoxicating substance in milk by his wife.
Taking cognizance of the alleged victim's statement, the man and his wife were arrested.

The accused's wife, who was also an accused in the case, was acquitted as the prosecution was unable to substantiate its case against her.
The accused, however, denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.