A trial court in Jammu on Friday acquitted a man in a case involving allegations that he raped his niece, on finding that it was a false and frivolous rape case that was also marked by a botched, manipulated and tainted police investigation.

Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh passed the order. The trial court expressed that it was baffled by how a tainted investigation and a false rape complaint led to the accused man’s imprisonment for a year and seven months, and destroyed his reputation.

The court said it was shocked at how in cases like this, police officers assume that they can take the law into their own hands.

"It is because of tainted and fabricated investigation that accused seems to have faced trauma of being framed up in an occurrence which never took place. Whole investigation therefore is nothing but tainted... Indeed, accused has been falsely framed up in a frivolous case on account of botched up, fabricated, deliberately manipulated and tainted investigation. Accused is therefore acquitted," the May 29 order said.

The court proceeded to order a departmental inquiry against the investigation officer (IO) in the case, as well as his supervising officer. The judge directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Jammu to initiate the inquiry.

The court added that the niece who filed the false complaint should also face a case under Section 182 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) for giving false information.

Moreover, the court has also ordered the authorities to launch an inquiry into two witnesses - an NGO worker and a housewife - who were alleged to have instigated the complainant to file the false rape case.

If the inquiry finds the instigation allegations to be true, criminal action should be taken against them as per the law, the court said.

The case concerned allegations by a 20-21-year-old woman that her uncle entered her room in the middle of the night in May 2022 and raped her twice.

The complainant stated that she did not immediately inform her parents because her father was suffering from paralysis and she lacked courage to disclose the incident.

According to her testimony, she contacted her brother, who was away in Beas, Punjab. Thereafter, she is said to have contacted her cousin, who provided her with mobile numbers of two NGO workers.

She stated that she then approached the police station with her mother and the two NGO workers, where a first information report (FIR) was lodged. The uncle was booked for rape. He was arrested in May 2022, and remained in jail until December 2023, when he was granted bail.

However, the trial court yesterday found that there was no medical evidence to support the rape allegations against the accused, that the testimony of the victim (niece/ complainant) was highly doubtful and that the investigation into the case was marked by serious lapses.

With respect to the victim's testimony, the Court noted that she had claimed that the accused man had stayed in the room for 30 to 45 minutes and raped her twice.

She admitted that she received no injury, that her clothes were not torn and the accused did not receive any scratches during the alleged scuffle.

There were also certain contradictions between in the statement she gave to the police under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and her testimony in court.

It was only during her testimony in court that the victim claimed that she was rape two times. The court termed this a glaring contradiction and an improvement on her earlier statement to the police.

The trial court questioned how the alleged rape was committed twice without her parents or other uncles, who lived in the same residence, not noticing any outcry.

The court opined that it was patently absurd and palpably improbable that the incident could have completely escaped the notice of any of the other nearby family members.

"I say so because for a 20 year old victim to say that her Uncle entered her room at mid-night, pulled off her trouser so conveniently, raped her twice and yet her parents and two uncles residing in the same premises did not get even a whisper of any out- cry/alarm – is not only an un-palatable scenario but also defies modest of modicum of logic," the judgment states.

The court further held that there was an unexplained 10-15 day delay in approaching the police.

Moreover, it noted that according to testimony by the victim's brother, in the days after the FIR, their relatives and acquaintances had visited the family's residence to question why the matter was being escalated legally instead of the dispute being settled. Coupled with this, the court questioned why the victim had chosen not to reside with her family soon after filing the police complaint.

"Instead of finding re-assurance and support in her family care, (the victim) chose to stay with one stop centre at New Plot, Jammu for 10/15 days and joined her family only after her 164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded. This is highly un-usual. Did PW Victim/Prosecutrix anticipate hostility or backlash or rejection from her family for registration of FIR of such grave magnitude against her real Uncle?" the court asked.

The victim's mother also claimed that she came to know about the rape allegations only after she reached the police station, when she overheard a conversation between her daughter and an NGO worker.

This led the trial court to question whether the entire rape case was institgated by two witnesses, who were initially described as NGO workers.

One of them later denied being affiliated to any NGO and described herself as a housewife. The other said that she had been working for an NGO and had intervened in the matter only after receiving messages from the victim about the alleged sexual abuse she had faced.

The court, in its acquittal order, remarked that the NGO worker seems to have been the reason why the rape FIR was registered, rather than any genuine allegation by the victim or her family.

"Such intervention by an outside entity raises grave concern about the veracity of prosecution case and potential misuse of legal process. An external instigation to initiate criminal proceedings against an individual therefore is deeply troubling more particularly when Investigating Agency also chooses= to be compliant to such external pressure. On this score also, prosecution case appears to be bogus and wholly fabricated," the court said.

The court went on to criticise the police's response in the matter as well, noting that the IO visited the alleged crime scene belatedly, ten days after the alleged incident, among other lapses.

"Whole investigation therefore is fabricated, botched and concocted and accused has been framed up in an frivolous case by deliberate manipulation by Investigating Agency in cahoots with inexplicably overt role played by PW 4 Monika (who denied being NGO worker) and PW 5 Dr. Richa (NGO worker) and one Rajat (victim's cousin). It is because of tainted and fabricated investigation that accused seems to have faced trauma of being framed up in an occurrence which never took place. Whole investigation therefore is nothing but tainted," the court concluded, while acquitting the accused.

The prosecution was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra. The accused was represented by Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel Anil Sharma.

[Read Order]