Delhi High Court Acquits Man in 2013 Rape Case, Cites Major Contradictions in Prosecutrix’s Testimony
New Delhi, November 19, 2025:
In a significant judgment delivered on Tuesday, the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of Naresh Kumar, who had been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for the alleged rape of a woman in 2013. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri allowed the appeal after finding multiple inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions in the prosecutrix’s version of events, ultimately holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Naresh Kumar, who was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, had been on bail since 2018 after his sentence was suspended. The case stemmed from a complaint lodged on the night of February 1, 2013, when the prosecutrix telephoned the police claiming that she had locked “two persons” inside her house for committing “galat kaam” (wrong act) with her.
Key Grounds for Acquittal
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, including the initial police entry, statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, medical records, forensic reports, and call detail records (CDRs). The Court found the prosecution’s case riddled with serious infirmities:
1. Contradictions About Number of Accused
While the initial police entry (DD 55A) recorded that two persons were confined by the complainant, both her written complaint and later statements made no mention of a second person. In her testimony before the Court, she suddenly claimed the appellant was accompanied by others who threatened to kill her — a fact not stated earlier.
2. Introduction of New Elements Over Time
The Court noted several material improvements added by the prosecutrix over time:
- Allegation of the appellant having a knife (not present in her first statement).
- Claim that the appellant cleaned himself with her child’s frock.
- Allegation of scuffle, threats, and phrases such as “he enjoyed a lot,” none of which appeared in her earliest complaint.
These later additions, the Court said, weakened the reliability of her testimony.
3. Forensic Evidence Did Not Support Allegation
The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report found no trace of semen on any exhibit — including vaginal samples, the bedsheet, or the child’s frock allegedly used by the accused.
Additionally, the medical examination revealed no external or internal injuries, and the hymen was found to be old torn, with no fresh signs of assault.
4. Call Records Showed Prior Contact
The CDR analysis — produced by the defence through a nodal officer — showed multiple calls between the mobile number associated with the prosecutrix and the accused on the day of the incident, contradicting her claim that she did not know him.
The prosecutrix denied knowing her own phone number, even though the PCR call was made from that very number.
5. Evidence of Prior Enmity
The defence demonstrated that there was a land dispute between the prosecutrix and the appellant’s sister, Santosh. Two FIRs registered by the prosecutrix against Santosh and her son shortly before the alleged rape bolstered the defence claim of false implication.
A beat officer (PW-7) confirmed he was aware of ongoing disputes between the families and that police had earlier prepared preventive proceedings under Sections 107/150 CrPC.
6. Inconsistent Accounts of Police Call and Accused’s Condition
The Court observed inconsistencies about:
- Where the prosecutrix made the PCR call (inside house / chowk / by beat officer).
- Recovery of his wallet despite claims he was nearly naked.
These contradictions raised doubts about the prosecution narrative.
Court’s Final View
Justice Ohri held that the case fell into the “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable” category requiring corroboration, which was absent. The judgment emphasized:
- Testimony of prosecutrix must be trustworthy and consistent.
- Contradictions on material facts cannot be ignored.
- Absence of injuries and negative FSL results further weakened the case.
- The defence of prior enmity had credible foundation.
In light of these factors, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.