3 days ago
Delhi Court Acquits Army Colonel and Another Person of Rape Charges Due to Lack of Corroborative Evidence
New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted an Indian Army colonel and another person of the charges of aggravated rape, gang rape and other offences. On May 30, additional sessions judge Gagandeep Jindal had observed that the uncorroborated and unreliable testimony of the complainant could be relied upon in the absence of corroboration by cogent evidence.
The court acquitted the two men, saying it was hard to believe that the complainant continued to be a victim of circumstances for five years while simultaneously providing legal advice to the accused.
The court stated, "The solitary, uncorroborated, and unreliable testimony of the complainant cannot be taken as gospel truth in the absence of corroboration from any other independent cogent evidence. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt."
The court was hearing the case against the colonel, who was charged under the Indian Penal Code's sections 376 (2) (n) (repeated rape), 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc.), and 506 (criminal intimidation). The colonel and his friend were also charged under Section 376D (gang rape) of IPC.
Advocate Abimanyu Kumar of Tripaksha Litigation, appearing for the army officer, argued that the case was an abuse of process and a textbook case of false implication motivated by extortion and personal vendetta.
The court admitted a dispute regarding the payment of professional fees by the accused to the complainant.
According to the prosecution, in Oct 2016, the colonel and another man committed rape after drugging the complainant, a lawyer who was providing legal advice to the Army officer on his matrimonial dispute. The officer was said to have befriended the complainant's husband and family and continued to force the woman into a sexual relationship with him until Aug 2021.
The court noted contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, besides the absence of forensic or medical evidence to prove the allegations and an unexplained delay in reporting the matter to police. Flagging the delay in filing a report with police, the judge noted that the first incident was listed as occurring in Oct 2016 and the last in Aug 2021, but the matter had been brought to the cops' notice only in Nov 2021.
"The prosecution tried to explain the delay by contending that the accused had an obscene video of the complainant recorded by him on Oct 28, 2016," the court said but noted that no such video was found during the investigation. Even the forensic analysis of the colonel's mobile hadn't revealed any such video.
