‘Physical relations’ too vague to prove rape, says Delhi High Court

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that the term “physical relations” used by the complainant was too ambiguous to establish the offence of rape or penetrative sexual assault.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, who delivered the verdict, observed that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the use of the term ‘physical relations’, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt,” the court said.

The appellant, Rahul alias Bhupinder Verma, had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court for allegedly having sexual relations with his 16-year-old cousin on the pretext of marriage.

The FIR in the case was lodged in March 2016, nearly one and a half years after the alleged incident. Justice Ohri noted that the delay in filing the complaint was inadequately explained and said, “In the absence of concretely established reasons, the delay of one and a half years in reporting the incident assumes importance,” the court said, adding that there was “no evidence on record to prove that she did not have the ability to speak from the time since the incident till the FIR came to be registered.”

According to the prosecution, the victim had lost her voice after consuming poison when the accused refused to marry her, and the complaint was lodged only after she regained her ability to speak. However, the court said there was no medical evidence to substantiate this claim.

“There is no evidence on record to prove that she did not have the ability to speak from the time since the incident till the FIR came to be registered,” Justice Ohri observed.

The High Court further noted that neither the Indian Penal Code (IPC) nor the POCSO Act defines the term “physical relations”, and that its use in testimony cannot automatically be interpreted as proof of rape or penetrative sexual assault.

“Whether use of expression ‘physical relations’ would automatically mean rape/penetrative sexual assault or there has to be some further description, or other evidence, to establish the connection between the term ‘physical relations’ and the offence?” the court asked.

Referring to a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, Justice Ohri reiterated that “the phrase ‘physical relations’ cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse, let alone sexual assault.”

The judge also pointed out that neither the Additional Public Prosecutor nor the trial court had sought clarification from the victim about what she meant by the term “physical relations”.

“statutory duty of the Court to ask certain questions to discover or obtain proper proof of the relevant facts” under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, especially when dealing with vulnerable witnesses, the order stated.

Calling it an “unfortunate case”, Justice Ohri set aside the conviction and directed that the appellant be released from custody “forthwith, if not required in any other case”.

“Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant acquitted. As a necessary sequitur, the appellant is released from the jail forthwith, if not required with any other case,” the court concluded.