PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a State appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of raping a UK national in 2016, holding that the prosecution failed to explain a delay of nearly four years in lodging the First Information Report and had not produced sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.
The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit Jamsandekar was hearing the State’s appeal along with an application seeking leave to challenge the August 30, 2024 judgment of the Fast Track Court (POCSO), Panaji, which had acquitted Rajasthan-native Bhanwar Chouhan of the charge under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred between April 20 and April 23, 2016, when the accused allegedly misbehaved with the victim on the pretext of conducting spiritual healing and then sexually assaulted her. The case was registered in January 2020.
During the trial, the complainant had deposed that she first met the accused in Rajasthan and later in Goa, where he allegedly persuaded her to join spiritual healing sessions at his ashram.
After analysing the evidence on record, the trial court observed that there was no proper explanation for the delay, particularly as the complainant had admitted in cross-examination that she travelled to India, including Goa, in April 2017, January 2018 and October 2019 after the alleged incident. “This is significant as the complainant had herself admitted in her cross-examination that after the incident she came to India and also to Goa in April 2017, January 2018 and October 2019,” the court noted.
The trial court further held that the contradictions in her testimony went to the root of the matter and created serious doubt about the prosecution’s case, resulting in acquittal.
Upholding that decision, the High Court said it was unable to agree with the submission of the Public Prosecutor that the accused ought to have been convicted even in the absence of other evidence and relying on the victim’s testimony.
“Firstly, there was an unexplained delay of nearly four years in lodging the FIR. Secondly, the version of the complainant was found to be full of contradictions and she was not sure whether rape was committed on her by the accused. Thirdly, there is no supporting evidence to prove the prosecution's story,” the Bench observed.
“... we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has not only failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, but the evidence brought on record was also wholly insufficient to establish the charge framed against the accused under Section 376 IPC. Consequently, we hold that the judgment and order of the trial court do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court. The present appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.”
