Four persons, accused in a gang- rape case, have been acquitted by a Delhi court which said the woman seemed to have fabricated the charges and falsely implicated them in consultation with her in-laws.
Clearly from the material on record, the view which points to "the innocence and false implication of the accused in this case ... Seems to be more reasonable and probable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that all the accused are liable to be discharged," Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhatt said.
The court, while acquitting the four Delhi residents of the charges including gangrape and wrongful restraint under IPC, also noted that there was no such allegations in the police complaint filed by the woman. She had also not named the accused, who were her neighbours, earlier.
"There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why names of accused and exact details of occurrence, as mentioned later on by the woman under section 164 CrPC before magistrate, were not mentioned by her in written complaint.
"It is on this very score that prosecution version appears to be doubtful and not trustworthy at this stage itself. It appears that the occurrence has been fabricated later on by the woman in consultation with her in-laws and she took names of the accused also later on at the instance of her in-laws in order to frame them in a false criminal case," it said.
According to prosecution, the woman in her complaint to the police, said that on May 3, 2014, she was going home with her brother-in-law when the accused came on motorcycles and misbehaved with her.
However, in her statement before the magistrate, she alleged that she was gangraped by the four men, who were her neighbours.
The accused were arrested for the alleged offences under sections 376D (gang rape), 354B (assaulting woman with intent to disrobe), 354D (stalking), 341(wrongful restraint) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC.
During the trial, the accused persons had denied the allegations saying they were falsely implicated by the woman due to previous enmity between them.
The court, while freeing the accused, also noted that there had been history of filing FIRs against each other by the families of the complainant as well as of the accused.
