In the matter of Smt. Rachna Singh Vs State, the prosecutrix filed a case of Rape in Jan 2017 at DCP Dwarka Police, Delhi. She also claimed that the accused took her belongings, which the accused returned at a Metro station.
The prosecutrix in her complaint said that, the accused book a room in a hotel at Paharganj, Delhi on Dec 13, 2016. That time she also had belongings including suitcase, laptop, mobile. Then on 15 Dec 2016, the woman with accused went to Airport to see-off the accused.
In her compliant, then after returning from airport to her residence at Dwarka, where she found that all data was flushed from her mobile.
During investigation it was found that, prosecutrix had given an ID proof of Aligarh, UP and it was also revealed that, she did not reported any such incidents to the Hotel Management. She also did not submitted her mobile phone.
The court observed that, prosecutrix is educated, married and matured woman. She is daughter of retired Commandant of CRPF.
She has also stated that, she got invitation form IIM Noida to be held on Dec 13, 2016, but the same was found false because it was a gazetted holiday in U.P.
It also came in light that, after the rape, she made 529 calls to the accused between Dec 16, 2016 to Jan 29, 2017.
The bench at Delhi High Court observed it as “Her act of making so many repeated calls is not consistent with her allegations”.
The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sahgal, also said that “It is highly improbable that the appellant- prosecutrix, being a daughter of a retired Commandant of CRPF and herself being a Professor, could not make call to the police or any other person after receiving her mobile phone”.
Keeping in view of various other facts and findings, the bench acquitted the accused person.
“this Court is of the view that the testimony of the appellant-prosecutrix is unreliable and inspires no confidence and there are compelling reasons for rejecting of her testimony. Further, Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not attracted as the factum of sexual intercourse is not proved. There are also various lacunae in the case of the prosecution and the benefit of doubt will have to enure to the benefit of the accused-respondent no. 2. Consequently, the present appeal being bereft of merits, is dismissed.”
