- Recently, the Chandigarh High Court dismissed a plea by the Administration for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of an accused in the 2015 Gangrape case
- They said that since there was an injury procured, on the body of the victim, it doesn’t amount to rape
- Thye inferred that the prosecutrix was neither abducted not kidnapped
- There was also no evidence against the accused, and the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused
- One of the accused testified that a fake gangrape charge was placed on him by the girl’s parents since they were having an affair
Recently, the Chandigarh High Court dismissed a plea by the Chandigarh Administration for a grant of appeal against the acquittal of an accused in the 2015 gangrape case. The HC has ruled that since there were no injuries on the accuser’s body, it doesn’t amount to rape, and she is most likely a consensual party in sexual intercourse.
The Court has ruled that she was neither abducted nor kidnapped and the story put forward by her was improbable. After a doctor examined the victim, where no signs or symptoms of rape were observed. Thus it was inferred that the girl was a consensual party for sexual intercourse.
HC has also mentioned that the evidence provided by the victim was not substantial to prove her claim.
What was the complaint given by the prosecutrix?
The girl’s father filed a complaint in 2015 stating that his daughter had gone to attend a “Jagran” at night on October 30th of the year, but didn’t return till morning. He alleged that 4 boys- Amit, Suraj, Kannu, and Vikas had abducted her and gang-raped the girl. In response to this, one of the accused, Amit, told the court that the only reason he was being prosecuted was that he was having a love affair with the prosecutrix, which didn’t sit well with her family members.
How did the court deduce that the rape claim was false?
In the statement given by the girl, she was abducted from the event “Jagran”. The court states, that it wasn’t probable that she could have been abducted in the midst of such a big crowd at the event. Besides, the girl never provided any details as to how she came about the accused, and what time she was abducted.
She also testified that she was confined against her will in a “Jhuggi” for two days, however, she was not given any kind of intoxicant and was in her senses completely. In such a case, according to the court, the girl was completely capable of raising her voice to ask for help. It is improbable that no one would have heard her.