Noida: A city court has acquitted a man of rape and criminal intimidation charges after 12 years, holding that the case arose from a consensual relationship that later turned bitter and that the allegations were made in vengeance. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted she knew the accused was married and had gone with him willingly.Judge Priyanka Singh ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under sections 376 (rape) and 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) framed against Sector 49 resident Sunil Dwivedi. He was hence acquitted and was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs 30,000 and two sureties of the same amount, valid for six months in compliance with Section 437A of CrPC.The case dates back to an FIR registered with Sector 58 police by a Bulandshahr woman on March 23, 2014, accusing Dwivedi of raping her for two months on assurance of marriage and then threatening to kill her and post her video if she insisted. A case was registered under sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. Dwivedi surrendered on April 25 and the CJM court took cognisance in the matter on Sept 4. The case was transferred for session trial and the court framed charges against the accused on March 27, 2017.Prosecution presented five witnesses, including the plaintiff, her neighbour and office acquaintances.The woman corroborated the allegations made in the FIR, however, during cross-examination, she admitted that she knew Dwivedi was married and had two children. She also admitted that she herself was married but separated, and that she developed a relationship with him willingly. Other witnesses stated that they knew the couple and had heard that they were planning to get married soon.Dwivedi negated the prosecution’s claims and said that he had lent money to a man named Jeetu Pathak, who worked with the complainant. He said when he asked him to return the money, Pathak and the woman conspired to frame him. He said he filed a separate case against Pathak at Sector 58 police station for blackmailing him, even before he was framed in the rape case and also shared a copy of the application. Having heard both sides, court noted that none of the witnesses has given a statement about the rape incident taking place or hearing about it. They only gave statements of hearing about the marriage between the duo. “It is true that an accused can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, but when the conviction depends solely on the testimony of the victim, the court must analyse the victim’s testimony with utmost care,” the court observed. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996), the court said that the testimony of a sterling witness must be consistent with all other witnesses in the case. “The victim has clearly stated in her statements before the court that her relationship with the accused was consensual. At the time of the alleged incident, the victim was an adult, previously married, and the mother of a child. In the present case, the witness has consistently amended and modified her statements. In this Court’s opinion, the victim’s testimony in this case does not meet the above-mentioned quality and capacity,” the court ruled while deciding in favour of the accused.
