Proceed against prosecutrix who took U-turn after alleging rape: HC

Petitioner gets bail

* Justice Deepak Sibal asserted the prosecutrix and her parents categorically denied before the trial court that the petitioner raped the prosecutrix

* Also, medical evidence to support the prosecutrix’s allegations was not there

* “In the event of his arrest in the present case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail,” he concluded

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 15

In a significant judgment liable to change the way complainants take a U-turn after leveling allegations of rape, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the State of Punjab to proceed against a “prosecutrix” who retracted from her complaint after appearing before the trial court.

“In her complaint to the police, the prosecutrix had levelled specific allegations of rape against three persons. However, while appearing before the trial court, she has completely resiled from her complaint. In the light of this, the state is directed to proceed against the prosecutrix for having lodged a false complaint in accordance with law,” Justice Deepak Sibal ruled.

The judgment, liable to go a long way in preventing false implication or retraction under coercion or enticement, came on a petition filed by an accused seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered in March 2020 for gangrape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376-D and 506 of the IPC, besides the provisions of the IT Act, at police station “B Division”, Amritsar.

The prosecution’s case was that the prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police that a woman, who used to study with her, introduced her to a person and they developed friendly relationship.

During the course of such friendship, the prosecutrix went to the person’s residence to run an errand for her mother, but was raped. He then clicked her obscene photographs and started blackmailing. He, rather, took her to different places and raped her after blackmailing.

On several occasions, the petitioner, who was the other person’s friend, also raped the prosecutrix after blackmailing her. He, along with another co-accused, also took obscene photographs of the prosecutrix.

Appearing before Justice Sibal’s Bench, petitioner’s counsel GPS Bal contended that the prosecutrix, while appearing before the trial court, exonerated him. The prosecutrix deposed that the accused in the case, including the petitioner, never raped her. She also refused to recognise the other two accused.

Appearing before the Bench, the state counsel acknowledged the fact that the prosecutrix and her parents had not supported the prosecution’s case, but he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground he had gangraped her.

Accepting the plea, Justice Sibal asserted the prosecutrix and her parents categorically denied before the trial court that the petitioner raped the prosecutrix. Also, medical evidence to support the prosecutrix’s allegations was not there. “In the event of his arrest in the present case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail,” Justice Sibal concluded.