Category Archives: fake Rape

At least 50 men targeted & several crores possibly extorted by FAKE RAPE gang of 2 women & 18 others. Delhi police busts gang !

Delhi police has busted yet another fake case filing gang that targeted young professionals and extorted many lakhs from each of them. the total extortion amount could run to several crores according to delhi police who busted the Fake Rape gang !!

News from link shared below :

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-ncr-gang-threatening-fake-rape-cases-busted/story-nKtJo4Xl6vXOWoj3Vt6LQL.html?fbclid=IwAR1OTtBQwGZ4nsXW8YAXJQJ9I8JjqLHzmmA07_gOPz9J57AzaL9eeT7-Em8

Advertisements

Girl who had #Sex & #Lived for 4 years with a #married man of same village, cannot cry #rape later !!

MP HC

Whether girl maintaining sexual relation with married person can claim that she was raped on promise of marriage?

Thus, from the statement of the prosecutrix and her parents it is found that the prosecutrix and accused were in love and having relationship for the last four years. During this period the prosecutrix had physical relations with the accused. She lived with the accused in his house openly for long time.

9. Prosecutrix and accused are residents of same village. Accused was living with his wife and children in his house. Prosecutrix in cross-examination para 14 admitted that she had visited the house of accused and met his mother and wife also. The statement of prosecutrix that the accused had introduced his wife to her as maid servant, does not inspire confidence. It is not possible that in the same village, where prosecutrix and accused are living since birth, prosecutrix could not get information of the fact that the accused was a married person having children. During four years ofrelationship, it is not stated by the prosecution witnesses when prosecutrix or her parents asked the accused or his parents for marriage of prosecutrix with the accused. There is not even a whisper that they approached the respondent or his family members for marrying the prosecutrix. If prosecutrix was having relationship with the accused on promise of marriage, then it would be natural for her to make demand of performance of marriage within reasonable time. For four years not making any demand for marriage is not natural. Thus the conduct of the prosecutrix creates doubt on her evidence.

10. The finding of the trial Court in the present case is correct that the prosecutrix was aware that the respondent was already married person. It is not proved that accused had concealed the fact of his marriage from prosecutrix. The prosecutrix made sexual relations with the respondent/accused knowingly that he was a married person. It is not believable that the accused gave a false promise to marry her and persuaded her to make sexual relationship with him. It is also not proved that consent of prosecutrix has been obtained by misrepresentation and misconception of facts. Prosecutrix is a major woman, competent to giveconsent as per her will. For the offence of rape, it is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was committed against her will or without her consent.

 

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR

Misc. Criminal Case No.22431 of 2015
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs
Gulab Chand Kahar
Present : Hon. Shri Justice S.K.Gangele
Hon. Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava

O R D E R

(8.3.2017)

  1. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 14.05.2015, passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988, Anuppur, in Special Case No.66/2013, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 506(Part-2) of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this petition for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., has been preferred by State.
  2. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 10.8.2013 the prosecutrix lodged a report in police station Ajak, Anuppur stating that about four years ago when prosecutrix was sitting in the backyard of her house, the respondent/accused came there and forcefully took her to nearby field and committed rape on her without her consent. She tried to make a hue and cry, but was silenced by the accused by threatening her and also by making her believe that he would marry her. Even after this incident, he had sexual relations with her on more than one occasion for last four years on the pretext of marriage. Some days before lodging of report, when prosecutrix repeatedly made demand for marriage, the respondent denied to marry her. Prosecutrix came to know that the respondent was already married and had children. Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged the complaint before police as stated above.
  3. 3. On complaint of prosecutrix a FIR Ex.P-1 has been recorded and an offence under section 376(2)(n), 506(Part-2) of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been registered against the respondent and after usual investigation a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court. The trial Court framed the charges under section 376(2)(n), 506(Part-2) of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the respondent, he abjured guilt. After recording of evidence the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and no offence has been found proved beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent.
  4. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner/State that from the statement of prosecutrix, it is proved that the accused had committed rape and thereafter had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on several occasions during last four years on the false pretext of marriage. The respondent/accused was already married having children. The consent of the prosecutrix was obtained on false representation and promise. Therefore the trial Court had wrongly acquitted the accused treating the prosecutrix as consenting party. The findings of the trial Court are erroneous, arrived at on wrong appreciation of evidence and liable to be set aside. Thus, the leave to appeal may be granted.
  5. 5. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for State and on perusal of record, it appears that the main allegation against the accused is that he obtained the consent of prosecutrix on false representation that he intends to marry her. Therefore, this aspect of case whether the prosecutrix has made relations with the accused on her free will or whether her consent was obtained on false representation has to be considered.
  6. 6. In the case of Deelip Singh Vs. State of Bihar [(2005) 1 SCC 88] Hon’ble Apex Court while defining the consent under section 90 of IPC in para 12 and 14 observed that : “Section 90 IPC, though, does not define “consent”, but describes what is not consent. It says that a consent is not such a consent as is intended by IPC (Sections 375 and 376 IPC in this case) if it is given under a misconception of fact. A misrepresentation as regards the intention of the person seeking consent i.e. the accused, could give rise to the misconception of fact. The consent given pursuant to a false representation that the accused intends to marry, could be regarded as consent given under misconception of fact. But a promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to “misconception of fact” within the meaning of Section 90 IPC.”
  7. 7. The prosecutrix lodged the report after four years of the first instance of alleged rape. From the statement of prosecutrix P.W.1 and eye witness P.W.5, it appears that on the same day, when accused committed rape on prosecutrix first time, this fact was brought into the notice of mother of prosecutrix, but no report of this incident had been lodged to police. Prosecutrix (P.W.1) in her statement admits that she had relations with the accused/respondent for the last four years, because the accused had made a promise to marry her. The parents of the prosecutrix P.W.6 (mother) and P.W.11 (father) also admitted this fact and stated that they knew that the prosecutrix and accused had sexual relations. Prosecutrix (P.W.1) in cross-examination para 14 has admitted that her relationship with the accused was known to everybody in the village and when village community objected to it and outcasted her, she had started living with the accused.
  8. 8. Thus, from the statement of the prosecutrix and her parents it is found that the prosecutrix and accused were in love and having relationship for the last four years. During this period the prosecutrix had physical relations with the accused. She lived with the accused in his house openly for long time.
  9. 9. Prosecutrix and accused are residents of same village. Accused was living with his wife and children in his house. Prosecutrix in cross-examination para 14 admitted that she had visited the house of accused and met his mother and wife also. The statement of prosecutrix that the accused had introduced his wife to her as maid servant, does not inspire confidence. It is not possible that in the same village, where prosecutrix and accused are living since birth, prosecutrix could not get information of the fact that the accused was a married person having children. During four years of relationship, it is not stated by the prosecution witnesses when prosecutrix or her parents asked the accused or his parents for marriage of prosecutrix with the accused. There is not even a whisper that they approached the respondent or his family members for marrying the prosecutrix. If prosecutrix was having relationship with the accused on promise of marriage, then it would be natural for her to make demand of performance of marriage within reasonable time. For four years not making any demand for marriage is not natural. Thus the conduct of the prosecutrix creates doubt on her evidence.
  10. 10. The finding of the trial Court in the present case is correct that the prosecutrix was aware that the respondent was already married person.It is not proved that accused had concealed the fact of his marriage from prosecutrix. The prosecutrix made sexual relations with the respondent/accused knowingly that he was a married person. It is not believable that the accused gave a false promise to marry her and persuaded her to make sexual relationship with him. It is also not proved that consent of prosecutrix has been obtained by misrepresentation and misconception of facts. Prosecutrix is a major woman, competent to give consent as per her will. For the offence of rape, it is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was committed against her will or without her consent.
  11. 11. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held the respondent not guilty of the alleged offence of rape. Thus there is no substance in this appeal.
  12. 12. Consequently, the prayer for leave to appeal is dismissed.

(S.K.GANGELE) (ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA)

JUDGE JUDGE

Girl #Fakes #Rape, Men #Jailed for years, released after 7, 10 #years by #Supreme court !! Lives wasted in #India

Girl fakes rape, men jailed for years | India News

SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA

Dhananjay Mahapatra

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday acquitted two persons in a 2001 rape case in Faridabad but not before one had served 10 years and the other seven years in jail.

After years behind bars, one of them appealed in the SC against the concurrent judgments of a Faridabad trial court and the Punjab and Haryana high court convicting them. A bench of Justices N V Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagoudar acquitted the two and said the offence of rape was not proved.

However, it recorded, “The first accused Jai Singh has already served out the sentence imposed on him, and appellant Sham Singh has already served sentence of seven years out of the total of 10 years imposed on him.” Though the bench ordered immediate release of Sham Singh, it did not address the fact that the two spent their prime years in jail because of false rape charges.

The incident dates back to August 22, 2001, when a minor girl alleged that the two brothers, who were her uncles, picked her up at night, took her to their home, tied her hands to a cot and raped her in the presence of their mother, sister, wife and children.

The medical report did not substantiate rape. There was no injury mark on her wrists or any part of her body and not any trace of semen. The accused told the court that one of them had slapped the girl for going around with a boy in the village and writing ‘love letters’. They also said there was a village panchayat where he had apologised in writing for slapping the girl. But the girl insisted before the trial court that the panchayat was called to hush up the rape case .

A Faridabad fast-track court acquitted the accused in March 2003. But the girl appealed in the HC, which remanded it for fresh trial. The trial court convicted the accused in June 2011. The HC upheld the conviction.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Shantanagoudar said, “It is amply clear that the case of the prosecution, as made out, appears to be artificial and concocted. It may not be probable to commit rape in one’s own house in front of the sister, children and mother. If in actuality the incident had taken place, the medical evidence would have gone against the accused.”

After going through the entire evidence, the bench said, “The evidence of the victim/prosecutrix and her aunt are unreliable, untrustworthy inasmuch as they are not credible witnesses. Their evidence bristles with contradictions and is full of improbabilities. We cannot resist ourselves to place on record that the prosecution has tried to rope in the appellant merely on assumptions, surmises and conjectures.”

Setting aside the concurrent judgment, the bench said, “The findings of the courts below do not deserve the merit of acceptance or approval in our hands with regard to glaring infirmities and illegalities vitiating them, and the patent errors apparent on the face of record resulting in serious and grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant.”

source

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/girl-fakes-rape-men-jailed-for-years/articleshow/65495128.cms

 

2 months jail for #false #POCSO case on daughter’s barber. दिल मांजे more !!

A court has granted 2 months jail for a mother who filed a #false #POCSO case using her daughter. she filed the Sexual harassment case on her Daughter’s barber. During inquiry it has come to light that the case is a false case. the poor barber has been in Jail since June (when #fale #falsePOSCO cases was filed

We hope that in such cases the jail term would be extended to a minimum of five years or whatever the accused would have suffered

2 months false POSCO case - Dil Mange more !

#Rape alleging #woman’s husband says “#misunderstanding” cleared and case withdrawn !! case against Union Minister Rajen Gohain allegedly withdrawn

Rape case filed against Union Minister Rajen Gohain takes new turn

Rail projects
File photo of Rajen Gohain.

The rape case registered against Union Minister of State for Railways Rajen Gohain has taken a new turn after the husband of the victim in a purported video appealed the media not to follow up the case.

A 26-year-old woman from Deurigaon in Central Assam’s Nagaon district had on August 2 lodged an FIR against Gohain for allegedly raping her and her sister on the pretext of providing them jobs.

In the purported video that surfaced on Facebook, a man, who has identified himself as the husband of the victim, is seen requesting the media not to run any news relating to the rape case.

“We filed an FIR at Nagaon Sadar Police Station against Union Minister Rajen Gohain on August 1. We filed the case against Gohain due to some misunderstanding. Later we realised our mistakes and requested the police on August 6 to withdraw the case. We requested the magistrate as well to close the case. So we have called upon the media not to follow up the case and run any news in this regard,” the man in the video says.

The case (No 2592/18) against Gohain was registered under sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The appeal of the victim’s husband to media has raised many questions as to why they have expressed willingness to close the case.

source

http://nenow.in/