A Mumbai sessions court has acquitted a man who was accused of raping his daughter-in-law, bringing a legal battle spanning over a decade to a close. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, pointing to a lack of reliable evidence and an unexplained delay in reporting the alleged crime.
Court Cites Contradictions and Delay in FIR
In a detailed order, the judge stated that after considering submissions from both sides and the evidence on record, the informant's testimony suffered from material contradictions and infirmities. The court found this evidence could not be believed or accepted. The accused, who was out on bail, was consequently acquitted.
The defence, led by lawyer Tariq Khan, argued that the allegations were fabricated. They claimed the case stemmed from a financial dispute within the family. According to the defence, the victim and her husband had demanded a share of the accused's pension benefits, which totaled approximately 7 lakh rupees, following his retirement. When the man refused to pay a requested sum of Rs 50,000, the family allegedly filed a false report to implicate him.
Prosecution's Case and Key Inconsistencies
The prosecution's case centered on an alleged incident in November 2013. It was claimed that the accused assaulted his daughter-in-law while the rest of the family was away at a wedding in Nashik. The victim testified that the accused demanded physical favours and threatened to defame her and harm her children if she resisted or disclosed the act.
However, the court noted several critical inconsistencies that undermined this narrative. The judge highlighted that the victim gave conflicting accounts of where the family was on the date of the incident and even the location where the alleged crime took place.
Furthermore, the court found the delay of nearly three months in filing the First Information Report (FIR) to be highly suspicious. The victim did not report the matter until January 2014, when she disclosed it to her mother during a visit to her parents in Surat. The judge noted that she was living with her husband during this period and had ample opportunity to seek help sooner.
Lack of Corroboration and Medical Evidence
The prosecution's case was further weakened by a lack of supporting evidence from other witnesses. The court observed that the testimony provided by the victim's parents was merely hearsay and did not offer direct corroboration.
Medical evidence also failed to substantiate the claims. While one medical officer confirmed the accused was not impotent, an examination of the victim revealed only an old injury. This injury could not be conclusively linked to the specific dates of the alleged assault in November 2013.
The combination of these factors—the contradictory testimony, the unexplained delay in reporting, the lack of witness corroboration, and the inconclusive medical reports—led the court to conclude that the prosecution had not met the high burden of proof required in a criminal case. The acquittal underscores the legal principle that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
