Jammu Court has acquitted a man who spent 19 months in jail after being falsely accused of raping his niece, holding that the prosecution case was “patently absurd and palpably improbable” and the investigation was “fabricated, botched and concocted.”

Court also ordered departmental action against the investigating officer and directed proceedings against the complainant for filing a false case.

According to the prosecution, a 20-year-old woman alleged that her uncle entered her room at midnight and raped her. She claimed she did not immediately inform her parents because her father suffered from paralysis. Instead, she contacted her brother, who was in Punjab, and later reached out to 2 women associated with an NGO, following which an FIR was lodged.

Examining the testimony of the prosecutrix, Court found several material contradictions and improbabilities. During trial, woman stated that accused remained in her room for 30–45 minutes and raped her twice, yet she suffered no injuries, her clothes were not torn, and accused received no scratches despite her alleged resistance.

Court also noted that the allegation of rape having occurred twice did not appear in her earlier statement u/s 164 CrPC and was introduced for the first time during trial.

Rejecting the prosecution story as inherently implausible, Court observed that the alleged incident occurred in a joint family residence occupied by the prosecutrix’s parents and two uncles, with several neighbouring houses nearby. It further held that the complete absence of any alarm or hue and cry cast serious doubt on the allegations.

Medical evidence also failed to support the allegations. The prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day the FIR was registered, yet doctors found no marks of violence and no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.

Court also examined the role of two women witnesses, one of whom worked with an NGO. It noted that NGO worker had taken an unusually active role in persuading the prosecutrix to pursue legal action, despite the victim’s mother insisting that no wrong had been done. Court therefore concluded that the “prosecution case appears to be bogus and wholly fabricated.”

Court also criticised the police investigation, noting that IO visited the alleged crime scene only after 10 days, delayed recording the prosecutrix’s statement, failed to collect crucial evidence, and did not properly investigate key witnesses.

Accordingly, Court acquitted the accused and expressed concern over the consequences of the false prosecution, observing “it is baffling to note - how tainted investigation and a false complaint based on which FIR was registered, not only trampled freedom of accused but also decimated his reputation.”

Consequently, it directed the Inspector General of Police, Jammu, to initiate a departmental inquiry against IO and then SHO, and ordered SSP, Jammu, to initiate proceedings against complainant u/s 182 IPC for furnishing false information.

SSP was also directed to inquire into the role of the two women witnesses and initiate criminal action if their involvement in facilitating the false FIR was established.