High Court suspends 10-year RI awarded to Air Force officer for raping colleague

The Delhi High Court has suspended the sentence of cashiering and 10 years rigorous imprisonment handed out by a general court martial to an Air Force officer for allegedly raping a woman colleague after questioning the credibility and veracity of statements made by some of the witnesses and other evidence on record.

The High Court observed that knowledge of the prosecutrix, who was unconscious at the time of the incident, primarily comes from an alleged video confession recorded by a witness and accounts by other witnesses, one of whom was her roommate.

The reliability of these witnesses is disputed, inter alia, on the ground that one of the witnesses initially denied the video recording before the court of inquiry, but subsequently furnished it, and that the roommate, though present at the relevant time and having witnessed the petitioner and the prosecutrix together, did not raise any alarm and only voiced her concerns the next day, allegedly as an afterthought, a Division Bench comprising Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice C. Hari Shankar said in their order of September 25.

Moreover, the purported extra-judicial confessions are vehemently disputed by the petitioner, who asserts that they were made under duress and false statements were given to protect the reputation of the prosecutrix, the Bench said.

“In these circumstances, the credibility and veracity of the extra-judicial confessions, witness testimonies and other evidence on record, has to be believed with a pinch of salt, while considering the application for suspension of execution of sentence,” the Bench ruled, while granting bail to the petitioner till the time his pending appeal against the trial is decided by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

A Flight Lieutenant had been tried by a general court martial on seven charges under different Sections of the Air Force Act for using criminal force to a woman, trespass, indulging in disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind, behaving in a manner unbecoming the position and character of an officer and committing acts prejudicial to good order and discipline. He had pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The said incident took place after a party was held at the officers’ mess of the Air Force Administrative College, Coimbatore in 2021, which was attended by the petitioner, the prosecutrix and their other course-mates.

Earlier that evening, the prosecutrix had sustained an ankle injury while playing basketball and was prescribed medication, with which she consumed alcohol rendering her in an “incomprehensible state”, according to the case of the prosecution. She was escorted back to her room by two officers, both witnesses in the case.

It was her roommate who told the prosecutrix later that she found the petitioner sleeping next to her. The next day, the other witness discreetly video-graphed the petitioner while he was apologising to the prosecutrix when she confronted him.

Two days after the said incident, prosecutrix submitted a written complaint to the Air Force authorities, leading to a court of inquiry, but withdrew it the next day. A few days later, she lodged a complaint with the local police, following which the petitioner was arrested. Later, the Air Force took over the case.

“Apparently, the entire case seems to be guided and founded on the basis of statements made by prosecution witnesses along with the alleged video confession. The present case is unique in nature since it is not the prosecutrix, who being a victim, has of her own volition complained about the alleged incident, but it is the witnesses who have told the prosecutrix about the alleged incident,” the Bench observed.

While holding that conviction can be lawfully based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, the Bench said that in the present matter, the prosecution case primarily rests on circumstantial evidence, along with the extra-judicial confessions and direct evidence is available to a limited extent. Further the prosecutrix is unable to recollect the alleged incident, while the petitioner claims that the incident was consensual.