Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in 2016 Spiritual Healing Rape Case
The Bombay High Court has affirmed the acquittal of Bhanwar Ghusulal Chouhan in a high-profile 2016 case involving allegations of rape under the guise of spiritual healing. The court's decision came after a thorough review, where it highlighted critical failures in the prosecution's case, particularly an unexplained delay of nearly four years in filing the First Information Report (FIR).
Court Cites Unexplained Delay and Insufficient Evidence
In its ruling, the High Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in lodging the FIR. This delay was deemed crucial, as the complainant admitted during cross-examination that she had visited India and Goa on multiple occasions—in April 2017, January 2018, and October 2019—after the alleged incident, yet did not report it promptly.
The court also observed that the evidence presented was wholly insufficient to establish the charge of rape. It noted contradictions in the complainant's version of events and pointed out that she herself expressed uncertainty about whether the accused had raped her. Additionally, there was a lack of supporting evidence to corroborate the prosecution's narrative.
Background of the Case
The case originated in 2016 when a foreign woman and her friend met Chouhan while having tea in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Chouhan approached them with a leaflet promoting his ashram and later met the woman in Goa, where he explained his spiritual healing practices. According to the allegations, when the woman showed disinterest, Chouhan visited her rented room, persisted in discussing spiritual healing, and then allegedly raped her.
The trial court had initially acquitted Chouhan, citing the lack of a proper explanation for the four-year delay in filing the FIR. The state subsequently appealed this decision to the High Court, seeking a conviction based primarily on the complainant's testimony.
High Court Rejects Prosecution's Arguments
The High Court did not agree with the public prosecutor's submission that the trial court should have convicted Chouhan solely on the basis of the complainant's testimony. It underscored that such a conviction would be untenable given the evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies.
Furthermore, the court addressed the complainant's claim that she had consulted a lawyer in Rishikesh and, following legal advice and after informing her embassy, lodged the FIR. However, the High Court noted that no evidence was produced to substantiate this explanation, further weakening the prosecution's case.
In conclusion, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's verdict, upholding the acquittal and reinforcing the importance of timely and robust evidence in criminal proceedings.
