The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of rape, citing inconsistencies in the victim’s claims and questioning her narrative. The court emphasized that while a victim’s testimony holds importance in rape cases, it cannot always be presumed entirely truthful, especially in cases involving prolonged consensual relationships.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: The Allahabad High Court stated that while the testimony of the victim, or prosecutrix, is important in rape cases, it cannot always be assumed to be completely truthful.
The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, remarked:
“No doubt in the matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix should be given primary consideration, but at the same time, it should also be kept in mind that nowadays there can be no presumption that in all the matters, prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully.”
This observation came during the hearing of a bail application filed by a man accused of rape, criminal intimidation, breach of trust, and related charges.
In the case, the prosecutrix, a married woman, had been in a long extramarital relationship with the accused. Despite her claims of being coerced and exploited, the court identified inconsistencies in her allegations, which brought her consent and intentions into question.
ALSO READ: Parents Cannot Defame Daughter’s Chastity in Rape Case: Patna HC
The woman had filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused and his associates, alleging that he had deceived her with false promises of marriage and career advancement. She accused him of repeated sexual exploitation, financial fraud involving gold ornaments worth Rs 5 lakhs, and issuing threats.
However, the accused’s lawyer argued that the relationship was consensual, supported by evidence showing frequent communication and familiarity between the two over a prolonged period.
The court observed that the prosecutrix did not object after the alleged initial assaults and instead continued the relationship. The court stated:
“She was capable to understand the significance and morality associated with the act,”
-suggesting that her actions implied an ongoing consensual relationship.
The bench further noted that if the prosecutrix was unwilling, she could have complained after the first or second incident. Instead, she continued the relationship and allowed herself to be “sexually misused” by the accused.
ALSO READ: [Rape Case] “Was Illiterate Victim’s Understanding of Settlement Verified?”: SC Questions
Additionally, the court pointed out that at the insistence of the accused, the woman even left her matrimonial home, returned to her parental home, and began living there.
The court remarked:
“Record shows that the victim had inclination towards the applicant and had willingly gone with him.”
Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the evidence presented, and the arguments made, the single-judge bench granted bail to the accused.
CASE TITLE:
Abhishek Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P
ALSO READ: “In Rape Cases, DNA Evidence Not Conclusive Proof”: Cal HC
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rape Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
