False FIR Acquittal | Rape Case Defense

• Questionable Charge Framing: The core challenge was to counter the inappropriate application of Section 376(2)(n) in the charge-sheet, which lacked consistent and corroborative evidence.

• Contradictory Statements by the Complainant: During the trial, the victim’s multiple statements raised concerns regarding the veracity and consistency of the allegations.

We conducted a detailed documentary and evidentiary review, including:

• Medical reports of both parties

• Police and judicial statements under Section 164 CrPC

• Scene of crime documentation

• FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) records

• Cross-examination plans aligned with material inconsistencies

• Medical Expert (W-1): Stated no injuries indicative of forced intercourse were found.

• Investigating Officer (W-3): Could not clarify when or how the crime scene map was created.

• Victim (W-4): Admitted under oath that the complaint was filed in a moment of anger, and the intercourse was consensual

After thorough legal defense and effective cross-examination, the Hon’ble Court observed:

• No corroborative medical or testimonial evidence supporting the charge of repeated rape.

• Contradictory testimony by the primary witness, who ultimately retracted the allegations.

• The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted, and no compensation under Section 437A CrPC was awarded due to the lack of substantiated harm.

At Amicus Publico LLP, we remain committed to upholding due process, ensuring that justice is served not only for victims but also for those falsely implicated. Each matter is handled with integrity, discretion, and an unwavering focus on evidence-based advocacy.

This case study is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute solicitation or advertisement under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India rules.