Three years after being accused of rape, a 26-year-old was acquitted of the offence by a sessions court in Dindoshi recently after the complainant told, in her deposition to the court, that she had filed the complaint against her then live-in partner and now husband in an ‘angry mood’.
In 2017, the 35-year-old Bachelor of Commerce (B Com) graduate had filed a rape, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation complaint against the youth, an auto driver. The woman’s husband, with whom she had two sons, had gone abroad. He had stopped sending money to her and divorced her over the phone in 2013. She had developed acquaintance with the youth who used to take her children to school. They had begun living together since 2014. She had said, in her complaint, that he had kept forcible sexual relations with her with the promise of marriage and then refused to marry and left her when she got pregnant with his child. She had also said that he had threatened to kill her when she insisted that he keep his promise.
The youth had got arrested after her complaint and spent around a year in jail, before he got bail in March 2018. Additional Sessions Judge AM Khan said in his judgment that the complainant has deposed that she had lodged the report in an angry mood as he refused to marry her after she got pregnant. She denied being aware of its contents. She also told the court that the police had sent her for medical examination after she filed the FIR, but denied having stated the contents of medical history to the doctor which alleged rape. Further, she said that she was taken before a magistrate to give her statement, but does not remember the contents of her statement.
Judge Khan said that she specifically admitted in her cross-examination that she has got married to the accused, is residing with him and has no grievance against him and, thus, has not supported the prosecution’s case.
After the prosecution had examined the complainant, the case had been closed for recording of evidence as the court was of the opinion that conviction could not be sustained even if other witnesses had been examined. The examination of other witnesses would have been a futile effort, the court felt and had rejected the plea of the prosecution to examine other witnesses.