The Bombay High Court acquitted a man accused of rape, citing that no girl of “ordinary prudence” would agree to meet at a hotel for a first meeting. The court questioned the complainant’s account and found inconsistencies in the allegations. As a result, the accused was cleared of all charges. The ruling has sparked discussions about victim-blaming and legal interpretations of consent.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court acquitted a man charged in a rape case, noting that no girl of ordinary prudence would agree to meet a man in a hotel on their first encounter.
The court remarked,
“This conduct of the victim is inconsistent with that of a person of ordinary prudence in a similar situation. The victim mentioned that the accused had booked a room for them. A girl meeting a boy for the first time would not agree to go to a hotel room. Such conduct from the boy would clearly send alarming signals to the girl.”
The case heard by a single-judge bench at Nagpur, led by Justice GA Sanap, who reviewing an appeal filed by the accused against his conviction by the Sessions Court.
The victim stated in her complaint that she met the accused through Facebook and they later exchanged phone numbers.
The accused allegedly visited the victim and asked her to accompany him to a hotel room, where he reportedly took out a T-shirt and asked her to wear it. While she was changing, the accused is said to have taken photos of her without consent. He then threatened to circulate the images unless the victim agreed to have sexual intercourse with him.
Fearing defamation, the victim complied. Despite this, the accused later shared the photographs on Facebook and sent them to her relatives, prompting the victim to file an FIR.
In its ruling, the Bombay High Court observed,
“If a girl is with an unknown person in a hotel and finds herself in trouble, she is bound to raise a hue and cry.”
The court further remarked,
“A girl meeting an unknown person for the first time would not accompany him to a secluded place. Even if she does, and finds herself in trouble, she would raise an alarm. It is not the victim’s claim that the hotel room was far from a crowded area. Therefore, the incident occurring in the hotel room seems unbelievable. The victim’s subsequent conduct is also inconsistent.”
The bench also pointed out the delay in filing the complaint, noting that although the pictures were made public in March 2017, the report was not filed until October 2017.
Read Also: “In Rape Cases, DNA Evidence Not Conclusive Proof”: Cal HC
The court observed,
“The victim and her father have not explained why, despite the publication of the photographs in March 2017, the report was only lodged in October 2017,”
The order states,
“It appears that after the victim realized the accused’s behaviour, she ended the relationship. It is possible the accused then chose to trouble them, leading to the repeated publication of the victim’s photographs on social media, prompting her parents to finally file the report,”
The court ultimately found the circumstances of the case and the victim’s subsequent actions inconsistent, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This ruling highlights the judicial scrutiny placed on both the sequence of events and the behaviour of individuals involved in sensitive cases such as this.