After 19 months behind bars, R.S. Pura man in Jammu walks free as court acquits him in false rape case

An innocent man from the border town of R.S. Pura in Jammu spent one year, seven months, and eleven days in jail after being implicated in a false rape case by his niece, allegedly with the assistance of some local police officers and NGO-linked individuals.

A Fast Track Court in Jammu has acquitted a man accused of raping his niece, holding that the prosecution had “badly failed” to prove the charge and describing the police investigation as “fabricated, botched and concocted”.

Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, Jammu, Amarjeet Singh Langeh delivered the judgement last week in a case arising out of FIR No. 90/2022 registered at Police Station R.S. Pura under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court acquitted the accused, Subash Chopra, a resident of Ward No. 2, R.S. Pura, Jammu, and ordered a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer and the then Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station R.S. Pura.

The court also directed the initiation of proceedings under Section 182 RPC against the prosecutrix for allegedly lodging a false complaint.

What was the case?

According to the prosecution, the complainant, a 20-year-old college student whose identity has been withheld, approached Police Station R.S. Pura on May 14, 2022, alleging that her uncle had entered her room between midnight and 2 a.m. and raped her after physically assaulting her.

Following the complaint, police registered the FIR and arrested the accused on May 15, 2022. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented before the court.

During the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her mother, brother, two NGO workers, doctors, and the investigating officer.

The prosecution was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra, while the accused was represented by Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel Anil Sharma.

However, the court found major inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s version.

Court raises doubts about prosecution’s case

In a strongly worded judgement running into several pages, the court observed that the allegations did not inspire confidence and that the conduct of the prosecutrix, her family members, and the investigating agency raised “serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution’s case.”

The court noted that the prosecutrix had alleged that the accused remained in her room for 30 to 45 minutes and raped her twice. Yet, no one in the joint-family household heard any cries for help or alarm despite several relatives living in the same building.

“It is highly improbable that a 20-year-old niece, when confronted by her real uncle in the middle of the night, would remain completely silent and inert during a brutal sexual assault,” the court observed.

The judge further remarked that the “complete absence of spontaneous outcry” cast doubt on whether the incident had taken place in the manner alleged.

The court also questioned the conduct of the prosecutrix after the alleged incident, observing that instead of immediately approaching her family members, she contacted her brother, who was outside Jammu, and thereafter involved two women associated with an NGO.

The judgement records that the prosecutrix stayed at a One Stop Centre in Jammu for nearly two weeks after the FIR was registered instead of remaining with her family.

“This unexplained avoidance and rejection of familial proximity by the prosecutrix in the aftermath of registration of FIR… further undermines the veracity of her allegations,” the court said.

A major factor that weighed with the court was the medical evidence.

The prosecutrix was medically examined on the evening of May 14, 2022, within hours of the registration of the FIR. However, the medical report recorded no marks of violence and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.

The court held that the absence of injuries or medical evidence severely undermined the prosecution’s case, particularly when the allegation was that the accused had raped the prosecutrix twice.

The testimonies of the prosecutrix’s mother and brother were also found to be inconsistent.

The mother stated during the trial that her daughter had initially told her that “nothing had happened”, while the brother testified that the entire process was handled by NGO workers and that relatives had questioned why the matter had been taken to the police instead of being settled privately.

The court also criticised the role played by two prosecution witnesses, Monika Manhas and Richa Abrol.

According to the judgement, Richa Abrol, who claimed association with an NGO named “Muskan Foundation”, played an “unduly overt role” in the registration and pursuit of the FIR.

The court observed that the witness appeared to have actively persuaded the police to proceed with the case despite resistance from the complainant’s family.

“Registration of FIR appears to have been precipitated by PW-5 rather than stemming from a spontaneous report by the victim or her family,” the court observed.

It added that such intervention by an outside entity raised “grave concern about the veracity of the prosecution case and potential misuse of legal process.”

Court criticises investigation

The court reserved particularly harsh criticism for the police investigation.

It noted that the investigating officer recorded the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC ten days after the FIR was registered and visited the alleged place of occurrence only on the tenth day.

The investigating officer was also faulted for not collecting call detail records, failing to properly analyse CCTV footage, not associating crucial witnesses, and failing to collect evidence regarding the alleged medical condition of the prosecutrix’s father.

The judgement stated that the investigating agency appeared to have “bent to the will” of NGO witness Richa Abrol.

“The whole investigation, therefore, is fabricated, botched, and concocted, and the accused has been framed up in a frivolous case by deliberate manipulation,” the court observed.

The court said the accused had suffered incarceration for “one year, seven months and eleven days in an occurrence which never took place.”

Acquitting the accused, the court held that there was “nothing on record by way of evidence which could even obliquely suggest that the occurrence as alleged ever took place.”

The court discharged the accused from his bail and surety bonds and ordered that any seized property be dealt with in accordance with law after the expiry of the appeal period.

In a rare direction, the court also ordered the Jammu and Kashmir Police hierarchy to initiate action against the investigating officers.

The Inspector General of Police, Jammu, has been directed to initiate a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer and the then SHO of Police Station R.S. Pura.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, has additionally been directed to initiate proceedings under Section 182 RPC against the prosecutrix and conduct an inquiry into the role of the two NGO-linked witnesses.

“If the enquiry so conducted is affirmative qua said role of these two PWs, then criminal action as per law may also be initiated against them,” the court directed.

The court further observed that a “tainted investigation and a false complaint” had not only affected the liberty of the accused but had also “decimated his reputation”.

“The system is not that insensitive not to take note of it,” the court remarked.