No Presumption Nowadays That Rape Complainants Always Tell The Full Truth: Allahabad HC
The court was dealing with a bail application filed by a man in a case involving charges of rape, criminal intimidation, and breach of trust, among others
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that while the statement of the complainant must be given primary consideration in rape cases, it cannot be presumed that such statements are always entirely truthful.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh said, “No doubt in the matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix should be given primary consideration, but at the same time, it should also be kept in mind that nowadays there can be no presumption that in all the matters, prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully".
related stories
The court was dealing with a bail application filed by a man in a case involving charges of rape, criminal intimidation, and breach of trust, among others.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that the complainant, a married woman, had engaged in a prolonged extramarital relationship with the accused. Despite her allegations of coercion and exploitation, the court found inconsistencies in her claims, raising questions about her consent and intent.
The woman had lodged an FIR against the present accused and his associates, alleging that he had deceived her with promises of marriage and career opportunities. The complaint detailed repeated instances of sexual exploitation, financial deceit involving gold ornaments worth Rs 5 lakh, and threats.
However, the accused’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual, supported by evidence of frequent communication and mutual familiarity over a significant period.
The court observed that the woman had not raised objections after the initial incidents of alleged assault, instead continuing the relationship. “She was capable to understand the significance and morality associated with the act," the court stated, highlighting that the complainant’s own narrative suggested an ongoing consensual association.
The bench opined that if the victim was not consenting, she could complain just after the first and second incidents, but she did not do so; rather, she allowed herself to be sexually misused by the accused giving consent, and at the insistence of the applicant, she left her matrimonial home as well and went to her parental home and started living there.
“Record shows that the victim had inclination towards the applicant and had willingly gone with him," the court noted.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, and complicity of the accused, along with the submissions made, the single-judge bench allowed the accused bail.
- Location :
- First Published: