On February 16, 2023, the Allahabad High Court expressed serious apprehensions about the escalating trend of false accusations of sexual offenses during a hearing of a gang rape case. The court reviewed evidence and facts presented on record and granted bail to the accused.
Sandeep Kumar Mishra and Chandan Kumar, who has been accused, along with the alleged victim and her husband, were all employed by the same organization. The complainant, who held the position of National President, had her husband working as the treasurer of the same organization.
As per the woman’s statement, the accused allegedly raped her on July 1, 2019, in her room in Varanasi. However, the alleged victim did not inform her husband about the incident until August 3, 2019, after she had arrived in Meerut.
It was at this point that the woman’s husband became the informant and registered a case under Sections 376-D, 342, and 506 IPC.
The FIR was forwarded to the Varanasi police by SSP Meerut since the case came under the jurisdiction of the Varanasi district. The FIR was then lodged on September 9, 2019.
The accused were apprehended in February-March 2020 and have since been incarcerated. They have now filed a petition seeking bail in connection with the case.
Submissions of the Accused
During the court proceedings, the accused men asserted that they had been wrongly accused of the crime because they had questioned the illegal actions of the victim and other members of their organization.
They claimed that the prosecution had produced additional evidence by introducing new witnesses and submitting their statements before the SSP Meerut, which, according to Section 162 Cr.P.C., is inadmissible in court.
The accused also contended that the FIR was lodged against them only after Chandan Kumar, one of the accused, posted multiple messages in a WhatsApp group regarding the illegal actions of the organization’s founder. They also pointed out that the alleged eyewitness to the incident was also a member of the organization.
The accused also raised doubts as to why the FIR was not registered in Varanasi, where the alleged crime had occurred and was instead filed in Meerut after a significant delay. The accused claimed that these actions indicated the informant’s malicious intentions to falsely implicate them at the behest of the organization’s top leader.
Alleged Victim’s arguments
On the contrary, the state’s counsel argued that the accused had committed the heinous crime of gang rape against the victim, and it is highly unlikely that a woman in Indian society would falsely accuse someone of such an offense.
It was also contended that the delay in filing the FIR was understandable, given the immense societal pressure on the victim to keep such incidents under wraps. The prosecution claimed that the victim had been forcibly raped by the accused out of lust, as she was found alone in her room. Furthermore, it was argued that, according to Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the victim’s statement does not require any further corroboration and must be considered conclusive evidence.
The decision of the court
Justice Krishan Pahal, presiding over the case, carefully reviewed the evidence presented and acknowledged that significant changes have occurred in Indian society since the Supreme Court’s 1983 ruling in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. the State of Gujarat, which asserted that women would not falsely accuse individuals of sexual assault in a conservative society like India.
After listening to arguments from both sides, the Court was unconvinced by the state’s claims and subsequently granted bail to the accused. The high court considered several factors, including the lengthy delay in filing the FIR by the informant and the fact that the trial was in its final stages.
Honourable High Court concluded the matter with the following remarks:
“The Indian society has undergone a complete change during the said period of about 40-years and now it is more often observed that false implication in sexual offences is on a rise. The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR is to be considered at the time of adjudicating the bail.”