NEW DELHI: The aspect of women using law as a “weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta” was highlighted by the Delhi high court in a recent judgment where it refused to prosecute a man whose wife sought a retrial of a rape case lodged before they got married in 2015.“This court had observed on numerous occasions that the number of cases where both persons, out of their own will and choice, develop consensual physical relationship and when the relationship breaks due to some reason, the women uses the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta.“They tend to convert such consensual acts as an incident of rape, may be out of anger and frustration thereby defeating the very purpose of the provision. This requires a clear demarcation between rape and consensual sex especially in the case where the complaint is that consent was given on the promise to marriage,” Justice Pratibha Rani observed in her order dismissing the plea of the woman.The woman had moved the high court challenging the trial court’s March 2016 order acquitting him, even though it was based on her own statement that the FIR was a result of a “misunderstanding” between the couple.He was let off by the trial court as the woman, who had alleged that she was raped after being made to consume a sedative-laced drink, turned hostile before the lower court.Initially, after lodging of the rape case, she, along with the man, had moved the high court and subsequently the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that they wished to get married.However, both the courts rejected their plea and asked them to face trial, during which the woman did not make any incriminating statement against him.“Since in a case under Sections 376 (rape) and 328 (poisoning) of the IPC, to prove the factum of alleged sexual assault, she is the only star witness and she preferred not to support the case of the prosecution, the trial court was justified in closing the evidence and acquitting the accused,” the high court observed, wondering why the woman wanted retrial in the case when on her own key testimony, the husband had earlier been acquitted.The judge said that under these circumstances, “the court had hardly any option, but to acquit the accused”.