Delhi Court acquits husband, brother-in-law due to inconsistency testimony

New Delhi [India], January 15 (ANI): Delhi's Tis Hazari court has acquitted a man from the allegations of cruelty and harassment of his wife for dowry as well as his brother of the charge of raping her, citing inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
The court acquitted the accused persons noting that the testimony of the alleged victim was not of sterling quality. The present case was registered in 2021.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Anuj Agrawal acquitted the accused persons noting material inconsistencies in the victim's statement.
"The testimony of the prosecutrix is not of quality and suffers from material contradictions as her version stands discredited in view of scientific/electronic evidence brought on record. The parties are admittedly having matrimonial discord. Seen in the light of aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against accused persons and therefore they deserve to be acquitted," ASJ Agrawal said in the judgement passed on January 4.
It was alleged by the victim that the husband and her relatives were harassing her for dowry. He got married in November 2020. She further alleged that on September 28, 2021, she was drugged and locked in a room, following which her brother-in-law committed digital rape.
The court in its judgement noted that the prosecution's case was based on the prosecutrix's testimony.
The court remarked, "While there is no cavil with the proposition that a conviction can be founded on the ocular testimony of a prosecutrix, it is also well-settled that her testimony has to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy."
The court further said that there was no medical or forensic evidence to prove that she was drugged.
The court observed, " According to the call details record (CDR), the prosecutrix made phone calls to her parents at the time when she claimed to be drugged and unconscious."
The court further noted that the parties were in matrimonial dispute and there was the possibility of them exaggerating their versions. (ANI)