A trial court in Jammu has acquitted a man who was accused of raping his niece, holding that the case was based on a false complaint and a "botched, fabricated, deliberately manipulated and tainted" police investigation.
Additional Sessions Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh, while delivering the judgment on May 29, expressed serious concern that the accused spent nearly one year and seven months in jail and suffered irreparable damage to his reputation because of what the court described as a fabricated prosecution case.
The court observed that the entire investigation appeared to have been manipulated, leading to the wrongful implication of the accused. It remarked that police officers cannot assume that they are above the law and criticized the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
Taking serious note of the investigation, the court directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Jammu, to initiate a departmental inquiry against the Investigating Officer (IO) and the supervising officer responsible for the case.
The court also recommended action under Section 182 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) against the complainant for allegedly providing false information to the police.
Additionally, the court ordered an inquiry into the role of two prosecution witnesses—an NGO worker and a housewife—who were accused of instigating the complainant to file the rape complaint. The court stated that if the allegations of instigation are found to be true, criminal proceedings should be initiated against them in accordance with law.
The case stemmed from allegations made by a woman, aged around 20-21 years, who claimed that her uncle entered her room in May 2022 and raped her twice during the night.
Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered and the accused was arrested in May 2022. He remained in custody until December 2023, when he was granted bail.
While evaluating the evidence, the court found that there was no medical evidence supporting the rape allegations. It also noted several inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's statements.
The court highlighted that the complainant admitted she suffered no injuries, her clothes were not torn, and the accused did not receive any scratches despite the alleged struggle.
A significant contradiction noted by the court was that the complainant alleged for the first time during her testimony before the court that she had been raped twice. This allegation did not appear in her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, leading the court to describe it as a material improvement in her version.
The court also questioned the unexplained delay of 10 to 15 days in approaching the police.
Further, it found it difficult to accept the prosecution's version that the alleged incident occurred in a house occupied by several family members, including the complainant's parents and other uncles, without anyone hearing any alarm or commotion.
Calling the prosecution story highly improbable, the court observed that the circumstances described by the complainant did not align with ordinary human conduct and common sense.
The court also scrutinized the involvement of two women who were initially presented as NGO workers.
According to the judgment, one witness later denied being associated with any NGO, while the other stated that she became involved after receiving messages from the complainant.
The court expressed concern that external intervention appeared to have played a major role in initiating the criminal proceedings and observed that the FIR seemed to have been driven more by such intervention than by any independent action from the complainant's family.
The trial court further noted several lapses in the investigation, including the delayed inspection of the alleged crime scene.
Concluding that the prosecution case was "bogus and wholly fabricated," the court held that the accused had been falsely implicated through a manipulated investigation allegedly carried out in concert with certain witnesses and other individuals involved in the case.
Accordingly, the court acquitted the accused of all charges, holding that the alleged incident had never taken place and that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Case: State v. Accused (Name Withheld)
Court: Trial Court, Jammu
Judge: Amarjeet Singh Langeh
Date of Judgment: May 29, 2026
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy