| False rape case robbed man of 19 months’ liberty: Court | | Orders action against complainant, cops; describes investigations as botched up |    |  Early Times Report
Jammu, May 31: In a blistering indictment of an alleged false rape prosecution and the police investigation behind it, the Fast Track Court, Jammu, has acquitted Subash Chopra of the charge under Section 376 IPC, recording that he suffered incarceration for one year, seven months and eleven days in a case in which, according to the Court, the alleged occurrence never took place.
The Court described the investigation as “botched up, fabricated, deliberately manipulated and tainted”, observing that the criminal process had not only trampled the liberty of the accused but also decimated his reputation.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh passed the judgment in a challan arising out of FIR No. 90/2022 registered at Police Station R.S. Pura, directing departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer and the then SHO, besides ordering action under Section 182 RPC against the prosecutrix/complainant.
The prosecution case was that during the intervening night of May 13 and 14, 2022, the complainant’s uncle, Subash Chopra, entered her room at their residence in R.S. Pura and committed rape upon her. Following the complaint lodged on May 14, 2022, the accused was arrested and later put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
However, after examining the evidence of 11 prosecution witnesses, the Court held that the case collapsed on every material aspect — from the alleged occurrence and medical evidence to the conduct of witnesses and the quality of investigation.
The Court found it difficult to accept the prosecutrix’s version that the accused entered her room at midnight, remained there for around 30 to 45 minutes and raped her twice while her parents and two other uncles were present in the same residential building.
The Court observed that the house was situated in a populated neighbourhood and yet, as per the prosecution case, no one heard any cries or alarm during the alleged incident. Holding that the narrative defied ordinary human conduct and logic, the Court termed the prosecution story and the testimony of the prosecutrix “patently absurd and palpably improbable.”
The Court also flagged a major improvement in her version. While she claimed during her deposition that she was raped twice, this allegation was not recorded in her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
A serious blow to the prosecution case came from the medical evidence. The prosecutrix was medically examined on May 14, 2022, shortly after registration of the FIR, but her medical report recorded no marks of violence and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.
The Court observed that where the prosecutrix alleged that she had been gagged, overpowered and raped twice, the complete absence of injuries or medical findings in support of recent intercourse materially undermined her testimony. It held that the medical evidence was wholly inconsistent with the allegation projected during trial.
The testimony of the prosecutrix’s mother further shook the foundation of the prosecution case. According to the judgment, the mother testified that when she asked her daughter why she was taking her to the police station, the prosecutrix stated that nothing had happened to her. The mother further stated that she came to know about the rape allegation only after reaching the police station.
The prosecutrix’s brother also stated during evidence that their parents never reported the matter to the police and alleged that the entire role in the case was played by persons connected with an NGO. The Court held that the testimonies of the mother and brother created “substantially profound doubt” over the very genesis and spontaneity of the prosecution story.
The Court sharply questioned the role of prosecution witnesses Monika Manhas and Dr. Richa Abrol, whose intervention preceded the lodging of the FIR. The judgment recorded that Monika Manhas denied working for any NGO and did not materially support the prosecution case. Dr. Richa Abrol, on the other hand, stated that she was associated with Muskan Foundation and had intervened in the matter.
The Court noted that Dr. Richa Abrol admitted during cross-examination that the mother of the prosecutrix had repeatedly stated that no wrong had been done to her daughter. The Court further observed that Dr. Richa appeared to have played an “unduly overt role” in initiating and pursuing the criminal case.
It held that the FIR appeared to have been precipitated by external intervention rather than emerging from a spontaneous report by the prosecutrix or her family, raising grave concerns over misuse of the legal process.
The Fast Track Court strongly censured the investigation, noting that the Investigating Officer visited the alleged place of occurrence only on the tenth day after the alleged incident and got the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC recorded after a similar delay.
The Court recorded that the Investigating Officer failed to cite or examine Rajat, the person who allegedly connected the prosecutrix with the other witnesses. The officer also failed to obtain call detail records, screenshots or any material to establish the claimed telephonic communications.
The Court further noted that although the Investigating Officer claimed to have collected CCTV footage, he did not analyse it, did not send it to the Forensic Science Laboratory and failed to place any footage on record during the trial. He also failed to collect any medical or documentary proof to support the claim that the prosecutrix’s father was suffering from paralysis, which had been cited as the reason for her not disclosing the allegation to him immediately.
Coming down heavily on the investigation, the Court observed that the Investigating Officer and the then SHO appeared to have bent to the will of outside interveners while registering and pursuing the case.
“Whole investigation therefore is fabricated, botched and concocted and accused has been framed up in a frivolous case by deliberate manipulation by Investigating Agency,” the Court recorded.
The Court noted that Subash Chopra was arrested on May 15, 2022, and was granted bail only on December 26, 2023, after remaining incarcerated for one year, seven months and eleven days.
While acquitting him and dismissing the challan, the Court observed that tainted investigation and a false complaint had ruined both his liberty and social standing.
“Tainted investigation and a false complaint based on which FIR was registered, not only trampled freedom of accused but also decimated his reputation,” the Court observed.
The Court also warned against blind reliance upon statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, observing that such a statement is “not a divine edict” and must always be examined for credibility and truthfulness.
In a stern accountability order, the Court directed the Inspector General of Police, Jammu, to initiate departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer and his immediate supervisory officer, the then SHO of Police Station R.S. Pura, and conclude it expeditiously in accordance with law.
The Court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, to initiate action under Section 182 RPC against the prosecutrix/complainant.
The SSP Jammu was further directed to conduct an enquiry into the involvement of Monika Manhas and Dr. Richa Abrol in facilitating the alleged false and untrue registration of the FIR. The Court ordered that if their role is established, criminal action be initiated against them in accordance with law.
Mr. Ajay Dogra, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State, while Mr. Anil Sharma, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel, represented the acquitted accused. (JNF) | | |
|
|