The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man, accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, with whom he was in a relationship, stating that there was a lack of medical evidence to support the offence of rape.
The 24-year-old man had allegedly sexually assaulted the girl in two separate incidents in June and July 2021, when he was 22-year-old, whereas the girl was a teenager of 14-15 years.
Although the consent of the minor is deemed irrelevant due to her age, the court acknowledged that she willingly met and accompanied the accused on both occasions without any physical threat or coercion.
A bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani said that there was no indication of violence, force, or threat in the girl’s account and no medical evidence to substantiate the rape allegation.
The high court considered several factors in granting bail such as all key witnesses had already given their testimonies during the trial, and the accused, now a 24-year-old young man, had no previous criminal record.
Additionally, there was no evidence suggesting that he posed a flight risk or would intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence. However, the accused was directed not to contact, threaten, or influence any prosecution witnesses and not to tamper with evidence.
He was also prohibited from contacting or interacting with the prosecutrix or her family directly or indirectly and from visiting the area where the girl resides.
The court noted that the fact that they had an on-going relationship, she had met and accompanied the accused to a hotel.
Justice Bhambani said that while there may be a debate about the innocence of both parties, the age difference was not significant enough to categorise the alleged act as “vile.”
“This also does not foreclose the possibility that the two were in an innocent, though unholy, physical alliance, which deserves to be looked at with less severity,” he said.
Initially, the girl’s mother reported an attempted assault but later retracted her statement, stating that no offence was committed against her daughter.
For which, the court said that the contradictory narration of the mother cannot be ignored.
20230620-204002
