New Delhi: A man accused of raping a 30-year-old woman in 2010 after allegedly making her consume a sedative-laced drink has been discharged by a fast track court in New Delhi which said there was no valid justification for a delay of six years in lodging the FIR.
Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Kumar refused to frame charges against the man, a Delhi resident, under sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323(voluntary causing hurt) of the IPC, observing that the complainant did not raise an alarm nor lodge a complaint against him for the alleged offences for six long years.
"No complaint was lodged by the woman till May 27, 2016, though she was allegedly raped by the accused for the first time on June 16, 2010. As per prosecutrix, she was raped for the last time on May 21, 2016. There is no valid justification for delay in lodging the FIR," the judge said.
It further said, "the delay of one or two days in lodging the FIR may be bonafide, reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of a given case. However, in the present case there is delay of more than six years in lodging the FIR.
Prosecutrix neither raised alarm/hue and cry nor immediately lodged report with the police against alleged forcible sex."
The court also rejected the claim of the woman that the accused had threatened and blackmailed her all these years with their obscene videos, saying no such videos were recovered by the police during investigation.
According to the prosecution, the woman, a mother of two children, lodged a complaint in May this year alleging that the accused, with whom she had professional relations, came to her house in June 2010 and after making her consume a sedative-laced drink, he raped her.
Thereafter, he repeatedly raped her while blackmailing her with their pictures and videos, she had claimed.
During the proceedings, the accused had contended that he knew the complainant and he had helped her financially as she had problems with her husband.
When he asked her to return his money, she falsely implicated him in this case, he had said.
The judge, while passing the order, said, "After sifting and weighing the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, I am of the opinion that the materials placed before the court do not disclose grave suspicion against the accused for framing a charge against him for committing the offences...Accordingly, accused in the present case is discharged."
