The judge accorded the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ordered his release from prison forthwith.
| Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO

The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence imposed by a Mahila Court in Chennai on an orthopaedician for the charge of having raped a doctor who had been accommodated next to his room in a city hotel during COVID duty in August 2021.

Justice Sunder Mohan allowed an appeal filed by Vetriselvan and set aside the judgement passed by the Mahila Court at Allikulam on December 30, 2022. The judge held that it would be highly unsafe to confirm the conviction despite several infirmities in the prosecution case.

The judge accorded the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ordered his release from prison forthwith unless his continued detention was required in connection with any other case. He also made it clear that the fine amount paid by the appellant should be refunded to him.

Justice Mohan said, the victim had claimed to have stayed in Room No. 304 and charged the orthopaedician of having raped her in the adjacent room. On the contrary, the Teynampet police’s version was that she stayed in Room No. 303 and the offence was committed in Room No. 304. Further, the victim in her evidence before the trial court had stated to have sent a text message to the appellant informing him about her intention to lodge a complaint and also claimed that one of her friends too called the appellant and scolded him after being apprised of the crime.

However, the police had not seized the mobile phones of either the victim or the appellant to find out whether any such text message was sent. Further, the police had conceded before the trial court that the victim’s friend had not told them anything about him having scolded the appellant.

“Therefore, it is highly unsafe to believe the version of Prosecution Witness 1 (victim) that she informed PW2 (her friend) or the version of PW2 that PW1 informed him immediately after the occurrence about the alleged rape,” the judge observed. He went on to highlight that though the alleged rape had taken place on August 5, 2021; the police complaint had been lodged only on November 17, 2021. In the meantime, the victim had given a complaint to the Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital on September 21, 2021.

Curiously, the complaint lodged with the Dean had accused the appellant of having “sexually harassed in an unacceptable way” without being specific about the nature of harassment. Two months thereafter, an improved version of the complaint with a specific charge of rape was lodged with the police.

The police, on their part, had not taken any steps to conduct the investigation in a scientific way by collecting the victim’s clothes or by analysing call data records. No independent witnesses from the hotel were examined and even the guest accommodation register had not been seized to prove their stay in the hotel.

To top it all, the victim had refused to undergo medical examination and an Internal Complaints Committee too had not arrived at any conclusion regarding the charge of rape, the judge said. He also took note of a reported conversation between the victim and the appellant during the alleged crime.

The victim had told the trial court that when the appellant forced himself upon her, she asked the appellant as to why he was behaving like this and whether it was the first time he was doing so. He had reportedly replied to her that he had already done the same with two or three women during his college days.

“The above conversation said to have been made by PW1 with the appellant during the act of rape also appears to be highly improbable and contrary to the allegation that the appellant forced himself on the victim,” the judge said and allowed the criminal appeal pending in the court since January 2023.