Greater Noida Fast-Track Court Acquits Man of Rape After 11-Year Legal Battle
A fast-track court in Greater Noida has acquitted a Dankaur resident of rape charges on Wednesday, bringing an end to an 11-year legal ordeal that began with an FIR filed in 2015. In a significant ruling, the court not only cleared the accused but also ordered the registration of a criminal case against the complainant for allegedly filing a false case, highlighting concerns over the misuse of legal protections granted to women.
Court Cites Deliberate Misuse of Legal Rights
Additional Sessions Judge Priyanka Singh delivered the judgment, acquitting Jaseant, also known as Yashwant, of charges under IPC sections 376 (rape) and 452 (house trespass). The court noted that the woman had "deliberately misused the rights granted to women by law", leading to the directive for a case against her under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section empowers sessions courts or magistrates to summarily try witnesses for giving false evidence or perjury.
The court observed a critical contradiction in the case: "The FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint of the plaintiff, but when she appeared before the court as a witness, she did not support the facts of the FIR." This inconsistency, according to the judge, made it clear that the plaintiff had abused legal rights, necessitating action against her.
Background of the Case and Key Testimonies
The woman, who was a tenant in the accused's house in Dankaur, lodged an FIR on October 6, 2015, alleging that her landlord had barged into her room and raped her on the night of September 11, 2015. She claimed to have attempted to file a complaint the following morning but was turned away by police. After approaching the district magistrate on September 14, the accused was briefly taken into custody and released four days later. Formal charges were filed in November 2015, with charges framed only in April 2023, seven years after the sessions court received the case.
However, the prosecution's case unraveled when the complainant testified in court, stating that the dispute was actually about rent dues. She told the court that neighbors had gathered during an argument, and she went to the police only to report the altercation, not to allege rape. "I am not literate, and I had simply put my thumb on the application which was written by one of my neighbors," she testified. She also asserted that her statement recorded before the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC was guided by neighbors.
Despite being declared a hostile witness by the prosecution, she maintained under cross-examination that she had neither made a false statement in court nor reached a compromise with the accused outside it.
Lack of Supporting Evidence and Court's Observations
Medical evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. The examining doctor, appearing as a prosecution witness, informed the court that there were no internal or external injury marks, and no conclusive finding of rape could be made. Additionally, a forensic science laboratory report was not on record.
The court found that all five prosecution witnesses, including the complainant herself, failed to substantiate the charges. In its judgment, the court emphasized the critical role of a victim's testimony in rape cases: "In a crime like rape, which is traumatic for a woman and shatters her social existence, there can be no stronger witness than the victim. If the same witness does not support the prosecution's case, it adversely affects the accused's conviction and detracts from the prosecution's case."
Ultimately, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt through "strong, cogent and reliable evidence", leading to the acquittal of the accused. This case underscores the importance of credible evidence and the potential consequences of false allegations in the legal system.
