Gauhati High Court acquits rape accused; says eye-witness deposition, lack of injuries cast doubt on prosecution case

The Gauhati High Court recently acquitted a man in a rape case involving allegations that he raped a married woman, after noting disparities in the woman's statements. [Raham Ali v. State of Assam & Anr].The Court noted that there was room for doubt over whether the sexual relations were consensual, especially since an eyewitness did not report that there was any resistance from the woman during the incident. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury proceeded to acquit the accused, after finding that the prosecution had been unable to establish the case against the accused. "In the case in hand, more particularly the deposition and testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, creates a doubt whether this was a rape or a consenting act, inasmuch as, the PW-2 who witnessed the incident has not termed the incident as rape but an illegal act being committed by both the accused and the victim. Further, she has not uttered any word that either the victim was struggling or raising any hue and cry," the Court said. .The Court, however, rejected an argument by the defence concerning an alleged delay in lodging the criminal case. "It is a settled proposition of law that in case of rape in an Indian society, delay in lodging an FIR in case of sexual offence by a woman cannot be fatal to discard the prosecution story," the Court said. .By way of background, the woman (complainant) alleged that on October 3, 2019, the accused took advantage of the absence of her husband and other family members, entered her residence and attempted to rape her.A case was lodged against the accused under Sections 448 (house trespass) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Consequently, the trial court found the accused guilty and imposed a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.Following this, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court challenging his conviction and sentence. .The High Court found contradictions between what the complainant had earlier stated in the first information report (FIR) and her testimony in court. In the FIR, she claimed that the accused had attempted to rape her in the absence of her family members. However, during her court deposition, she mentioned that the accused forcefully raped her for around thirty minutes. The Court further noted that two individuals who arrived at the scene after allegedly hearing the complainant's cries were not listed as witnesses or questioned. This was a significant gap in the investigation, the Court noted..It was also highlighted by the Court that the eyewitness in the case did not term the incident as rape but as an illegal act being committed by both the accused and the complainant, possibly referring to "sexual intercourse with a third party and not with the husband."The Court additionally pointed out that the medical report showed no signs of violence. If the complainant had been raped for thirty minutes while resisting and making noise, there should be at least some minor evidence of injury or signs of violence, the Court observed. With these observations, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. Advocate MK Hussain represented accused.Advocate KK Parashar represented respondents..[Read Order]