Court acquits man in sexual assault case

Expresses doubt over victim’s testimony

Stating that “the testimony of the prosecutrix has not inspired the confidence of this court”, a Delhi court has acquitted a man of the charge of sexually assaulting a woman on the pretext of marrying her.

The complaint lodged by the victim states that she befriended the accused after he dropped her home on his bike. The accused had offered a lift to the woman, who was waiting at the bus stand, but she refused initially. When he insisted, she agreed and went with him.

Refusal to marry

They later started living together at a rented accommodation and the accused established physical relations with her, the complaint said. When the man refused to marry her, she went to Burari police station in north Delhi and lodged a complaint of sexual assault against him in 2015. The woman, a widow with three children, was a nurse at a hospital and travelled by bus. The children stayed with their maternal grandmother while she lived separately.

“It is very surprising why any person will insist [on giving] an unknown woman a lift and the unknown woman would be ready to take a lift from an unknown person. The common man generally does not take a lift from an unknown person,” Additional Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar II observed on the victim’s statement.

“It is also very surprising that without putting fact into the knowledge of her parents, the prosecutrix was residing with an unknown person as wife and husband in a rented accommodation just on the promise of marriage. At least her parents and family members must have been examined on the fact that she was living with someone whom they also recognised but no such evidence has been brought on record in this regard,” the judge further said.

“Considering the facts and circumstances, testimony of the prosecutrix has not inspired the confidence of this court, hence, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Sonu is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC,” the judge said.