Punjab and Haryana High Court: Act against prosecutrix for U-turn in rape case

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 30

In a significant judgment liable to change the way complainants take a U-turn after levelling 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 raised specific allegations of rape against three persons. However, while appearing before the trial court, she has completely resiled from her complaint. In 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 gang rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376D and 506 of the IPC besides the provisions of the IT Act, at the B Division police station, 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 a friendly relationship.

During the course of the 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 had sex with 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 gang-raped her.