Upholding the acquittal of a man in a rape case, the Delhi High Court found that while the woman claimed she was raped in a diesel auto rickshaw with Haryana registration number, the same was banned in Delhi and as such a TSR (three-seater auto rickshaw) could not have been hired for travelling in Delhi.

Justice Pratibha Rani upheld the December 2016 order of the trial court by which the man was acquitted of charges of raping the complainant, a mother of two.

Both the courts found various contradictions in the prosecution’s case.

The woman, in the instant case, had alleged that on May 1, 2014, about 11 am, she was taken by the accused in auto from Bahadurgarh towards GT Karnal Road by-pass.

On the way, he offered her ‘Jal-Jeera’ containing some intoxicant. Thereafter, she was taken to a secluded placed where he raped her and then left her at a spot in Nangloi.

“As per the version of the petitioner/ prosecutrix, the auto in which she was raped was having Haryana registration number and running on diesel. The incident is of 1st May, 2014 and auto running on diesel are banned in Delhi. The TSR with registration number of Haryana having permit to ply only in Haryana could not have been hired by the complainant to travel from Bahadurgarh to G.T. Karnal Bypass, Delhi,” said Justice Pratibha Rani in an oral order.

The court also noted that her version was not corroborated by the MLC, which did not show any external or internal injury received by her even when she was examined soon after the incident.

The court also wondered how the police knew the name of the accused and that of his father immediately after the incident. Besides this, in a photograph, the complainant was seen with another man who had property dispute with the accused and his family.

“Although the prosecutrix stated that she demanded water from the accused and he offered her Jal-Jeera and thereafter, she became unwell, she was medically examined just a few hours after the occurrence and at that time she was conscious and oriented and not suffering from any kind of dizziness,” the high court noted.