On 24th January, Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted a man accused of raping his own daughter. As per the judgment, the daughter filed a fake rape case against her father under the influence of her then-boyfriend in 2012. In February 2013, the man was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs 10,000. He had filed an appeal against the decision in the High Court in the same year. After 12 years of waiting, he was finally acquitted by the court.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Vivek Jain said in the judgment that the daughter herself admitted to submitting a false rape case after her father caught her with her boyfriend and scolded her. Later, under the influence of her boyfriend, the girl approached her grandfather and later filed a false rape case against her father. Her boyfriend lured her into filing a case claiming that it would stop her father from interfering in their lives.
Background of the case
OpIndia accessed a copy of the judgment in the matter. The complainant, who was a minor at the time of the incident, lived in a slum area. A complaint was filed on 21st March 2012 at Chola Mandir Police Station. As per her complaint, on the night of 18th March 2012, her father sexually assaulted her after dinner. Her mother was not at home that night. She claimed that her father threatened to kill her if she narrated the incident to anyone including her mother. On 20th March, he again attempted to assault her as per the complaint but she fled and approached her grandfather.
She narrated the incident to her grandfather who took her to the police station and filed a complaint. The man was booked under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following investigation, the man was arrested and on 15th February 2013, he was sentenced to life imprisonment after trial. A fine of Rs 10,000 was also imposed.
Following the conviction at the Sessions Court, the father filed an appeal at the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2013. During the hearing, advocate Vivek Agarwal, appearing for the father, pointed out that MLC dated 21st March 2012 did not mention any sexual assault. Furthermore, a doctor appearing as a witness also stated there was no sign of sexual assault. Interestingly, second doctor appearing in the matter pointed out that when she asked the girl to remove clothes for a checkup, she fled away and reached the police station.
During a question in the court, the girl candidly admitted to having a romantic relationship with one boy and having physical relations with him. She further admitted that her father scolded her several times over the relationship. The judgment read, “Heavy reliance is placed on para-5 of the cross-examination wherein she admitted that when father scolded her, she, along with the said boy, lodged a report in the police station. She candidly admitted that her father/appellant has not developed any physical relationship with her. She clarified that her physical relations were only with the said boy.”
Furthermore, her grandfather turned hostile during the hearing and did not support the story told by the girl. Another witness, her younger sister, also turned hostile. Advocate Agrawal pointed out that the family lived in a single-room house and it was improbable for the father to sexually assault the girl in the room where her four younger siblings lived.
Interestingly, the forensic report suggested there was sperm found on the girl’s underwear but a DNA test was not conducted. Advocate Agrawal pointed that ” not conducting the DNA test, the adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.”
The court, after careful consideration, acquitted the appellant. The court highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for the conviction. The court noted, “Given the foregoing analysis, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. Unfortunately and sadly appellant remained in custody from 21/03/2012. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case on merits.”
Setting aside the Session Court’s judgment, the court added, “If the presence of the appellant in the custody is not required for any other case, he be released forthwith.”
