NEW DELHI: While acquitting a rape accused recently, a court commented that no one discusses the “dignity and honour” of men, given that everyone is fighting for the rights, honour and dignity of women. Besides, it said, laws meant to protect women might be misused by women.“Perhaps, now it’s the time to take a stand for men,” Nivedita Anil Sharma, special judge of POCSO Act court, said. She found several contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and her parents, pointing out the prosecution's “miserable failure”.Noting that victims were now being called “survivors”, the court asked: “An acquitted accused, who has remained in custody for a considerable period during inquiry, investigation and trial, and who has been acquitted honourably, should he now be addressed as a rape case survivor?”It added: “He may also file any case for damages against the prosecutrix, if advised.”The 20-year-old rape case had seen anomalies and improvements in statements of its main witnesses, including the complainant. The prosecution had claimed that a minor girl, residing with her parents, was abducted and raped on September 18, 1997.The complainant had said that the accused would visit her house. On the day of the incident, she claimed to be alone when the accused threatened her and abducted her, only to rape her later.But the court pointed out that if the girl was being abducted in broad daylight and, that too, in a residential area, why did she not raise an alarm. Additionally, three important aspects — forensic evidence, age of the complainant and day of the incident — were held against the prosecution.In the absence of medical evidence, coupled with the fact that the victim’s statement had serious inconsistencies, the court could not place trust on her evidence. And when it came to establishing the motive of the accused, the police’s version appeared to be untrue. The court said: “No reason is shown as to why the accused would jeopardise his future.”Without mincing words, it opined that no man, accused of rape, could be convicted if the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case, or given quality evidence. “It should not be ignored that the court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and contents of the file as well as testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media,” the court said.In the court’s view, the man's ordeal could continue even after his acquittal as it must have caused an uproar in society and his acquittal might not even be noticed.