We challenged the wrong framing of charges under section 376(2)(n) in the charge sheet. Second, the contradictory statements of the Victim Criminal Law Rape Case Victim Advocacy
Criminal Law : Rape Case
Time Frame : 3 Year
Year : 2024
Lawyer : Anuradha Upadhyay
Challenge
1. We challenged the wrong framing of charges under section 376(2)(n) in the charge sheet.
2. Second, the contradictory statements of the Victim.
Our Process
In the case under consideration, the victim complained about the accused, alleging the commission of offenses under Sections 376, 388, 389, 323, 341, 504, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the investigation, the learned subordinate court found sufficient grounds to frame charges against the accused under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Consequently, a charge sheet was presented before the court, framing the specific charge under Section 376(2)(n), indicating the commission of repeated acts of sexual intercourse without consent, as per the allegations in the complaint.
Planning The Case
Our plan was to counter the present evidence to proof them good for nothing and in the process of cross examination putting pressure on witnesses to make them reveal the truth, especially the victim.
Evaluating the Situation
We reveal from a perusal of the document available that, the victim had been living with the accused for a long period of time. Subsequently, the victim filed a complaint alleging rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused.
We assess that the accused suffered an unnecessary trial that is 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) appears to lack merit and a sound evidentiary basis. The charges may have been framed inappropriately, leading to potential injustice against the accused. Such allegations, being unsupported or incorrectly substantiated, undermine the integrity of the legal process and risk violating the rights of the accused.
We provided legal defense to the accused against wrongful charges brought forth by the complainant with malafide intent. Our defense strategy was meticulously crafted, taking into account all relevant case laws and legal precedents to fortify our client's position.
There was a significant risk associated with losing the case, as it involves charges under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the repeated commission of rape by the same individual over an extended period of time. Courts tend to adopt a stringent stance on such charges, emphasizing the protection of the victim's rights and interests, and are inclined to rule in favor of the victim given the serious nature of the offense.
We decided to act with the aforementioned planning and strategy.
Evidence
Medical Report of Victim, Complaint letter, Police statement of Victim, Statement of Victim under section 164 c.r.p.c, Medical Report of Accused, Map of Scene of Crime, First Information Report (FIR), Reply to the Notice given to the Victim, Summon of Victim, Court of Appeal, Receipt of FSL.
Cross-Examination
We examined W-5, Research officer, stated that he did not know whether the report was received or not. He could not express any opinion regarding the medical examination of the accused.
We examined W-1, The Medical Expert, stated that according to the medical report, forced sex cannot be said to have taken place. According to the medical report, there were no internal injuries. She cannot say whether rape took place or not.
We examined the W-2, and the police officer, stated that she does not remember whether there were any signs of the incident or not.
We examined the W-3, The investigating officer, stated that he does not know how many days after the incident the map was made. Everything was arranged on the spot.
We examined the W-4, the victim, who said that she had filed a case against the accused out of anger due to mutual rivalry. The accused should never forcibly have physical relations with her.
Results
The key witness in this case is the victim herself, who has become hostile to the prosecution. In her recent statements, she explicitly stated that there were discussions of marriage between her and the accused. She further clarified that the accused did not rape her forcibly; rather, the sexual intercourse that occurred was with her consent. Following mutual discord, the case was lodged against the accused in a moment of anger by the victim. This account contradicts her earlier statements provided to the authorities.
The FIR lodged against the accused contains incorrect and false allegations, charging the accused with multiple offenses. The complainant, motivated by malice and personal grievances, falsely implicated the accused.
Therefore, the court passed the order:
The person is declared not guilty of the charge in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, defense is not given as it does not seem appropriate to recommend compensation to the victim under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Contact us now for full support
