Source: hindustantimes.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man by a trial \ncourt in a rape case, saying the woman\u2019s testimony was \u201cuntrustworthy\u201d, \nfull on contradictions and she had called him 529 times between the date\n of alleged rape and the filing of the complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A bench of \nJustices Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said it was in agreement \nwith the trial court\u2019s view that the woman\u2019s testimony was \u201chighly \nunreliable\u201d, \u201cuntrustworthy\u201d and \u201cinspires no confidence\u201d, while \ndismissing her appeal against the man\u2019s acquittal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court had acquitted the man on January 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\n high court noted in its judgement that there were several \ncontradictions in the woman\u2019s statement regarding how she met the man, \nhow the alleged incident took place and why there was delay in \nreporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\n woman had claimed before the trial court that she had met the man on \nLinkedIn, however, the same was not stated by her in the complaint to \nthe police, the bench noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It added that the hotel where the \nalleged incident took place had 24 hour security despite which she did \nnot raise alarm or ask them to call the police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The other \ninconsistencies in her allegation the court noted were that even after \ngetting her phone back from the man, who had allegedly taken it, she did\n not call the police for over 30 days and in-between called him 529 \ntimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\n court noted that it was \u201chighly improbable\u201d that woman, being a \ndaughter of a retired Commandant of CRPF and herself being a professor, \ncould not make a call to the police or any other person after receiving \nher mobile phone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere is no evidence placed on record to \nsuggest that the appellant- prosecutrix (woman) was administered \nintoxicating substance and its effect lasted for three days,\u201d the bench \nnoted in the judgement and added that the factum of sexual intercourse \nwas not proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It also noted that she had not handed over her \nmobile phone to the investigating officer (IO) and had deposed before \nthe trial court that the police had not asked for it. \u201cHowever, the IO\n stated that she had asked the appellant-prosecutrix to hand over her \nmobile phone but she refused to do so,\u201d the court said, adding that \n\u201cappellant-prosecutrix had made 529 calls to accused-respondent 2 \nbetween December 16, 2016 (after the date of rape) to January 29, 2017 \n(before filing of the complaint). Her act of making so many repeated \ncalls is not consistent with her allegations.\u201d The bench in conclusion \nsaid: \u201cKeeping in view the aforesaid cumulative findings, this court is \nof the view that the testimony of the appellant-prosecutrix is \nunreliable and inspires no confidence and there are compelling reasons \nfor rejecting of her testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere\n are also various lacunae in the case of the prosecution and the benefit\n of doubt will have to enure to the benefit of the accused-respondent 2.\n Consequently, the present appeal being bereft of merits, is dismissed.\u201d<\/p>\n