Noida Court Clears Man of Rape and Intimidation Charges After 12-Year Legal Ordeal
A city court in Noida has delivered a significant verdict, acquitting a man of rape and criminal intimidation charges after a protracted legal battle spanning 12 years. The court determined that the case originated from a consensual relationship that later soured, with allegations made out of vengeance rather than criminal conduct.
Court's Ruling and Legal Basis
Judge Priyanka Singh ruled that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code against Sunil Dwivedi, a resident of Sector 49. Consequently, Dwivedi was acquitted and directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 30,000 along with two sureties of equivalent amount, valid for six months under Section 437A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The court emphasized that while an accused can be convicted solely based on the victim's testimony, such testimony must be scrutinized with utmost care. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996), the judgment noted that the testimony of a sterling witness must align consistently with other evidence in the case.
Case Background and Allegations
The case traces back to an FIR registered with Sector 58 police on March 23, 2014, by a woman from Bulandshahr. She accused Dwivedi of raping her over two months under the pretext of marriage and subsequently threatening to kill her and disseminate a video if she persisted with her demands. Following the registration of the case under IPC sections 376 and 506, Dwivedi surrendered on April 25, 2014, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate court took cognizance on September 4, 2014.
The case was transferred for session trial, with charges formally framed against the accused on March 27, 2017. The prosecution presented five witnesses, including the complainant, her neighbor, and office acquaintances.
Testimony and Cross-Examination Revelations
During the trial, the woman initially corroborated the allegations in the FIR. However, under cross-examination, she admitted to knowing that Dwivedi was married with two children. She also acknowledged that she herself was married but separated and had willingly entered into a relationship with him.
Other witnesses testified that they were aware of the couple and had heard discussions about their impending marriage, but none provided statements confirming the occurrence of rape or hearing about such incidents.
Defense Arguments and Counter-Allegations
Dwivedi vehemently denied the prosecution's claims, asserting that the case was a fabricated conspiracy. He explained that he had lent money to Jeetu Pathak, who worked with the complainant, and when he sought repayment, Pathak and the woman conspired to frame him.
Dwivedi further revealed that he had filed a separate case against Pathak at Sector 58 police station for blackmail, even before the rape allegations surfaced, and submitted a copy of the application as evidence.
Court's Analysis and Final Decision
The court meticulously analyzed the evidence, noting that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and modified over time. It observed that the victim, an adult and previously married mother, explicitly stated her relationship with the accused was consensual.
"In the present case, the witness has consistently amended and modified her statements. In this Court's opinion, the victim's testimony does not meet the required quality and capacity," the court ruled, ultimately deciding in favor of the accused due to lack of credible evidence and the consensual nature of the relationship.
