Libertatem Magazine

Delhi’s Fast Track Court Sentenced A Man For Raping And Recording The Wrongful Act With The Motive Of Blackmailing The Woman

Contents of this Page

A man was sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and slapped with a fine of Rs 1.38 lakh for raping a woman for over a year on the pretext of marriage. The accused also threatened the woman by claiming to upload the video of their sexual act on the internet.

The survivor stated on oath that she was looking for a job and in relation to that, called up a placement agency. It was the accused who spoke to her. He later took her to a hospital and got her employed with a patient as a helper. After a series of work-related interaction between Ranjan and the woman, they became acquainted with each other.

The relationship deepened when their mothers spoke to each other about their marriage. Things turned sour when the survivor found a woman at Ranjan’s house. It was then that an argument ensued and he threatened to upload the video online.

Observation of the Court:

The court relied on the CD, containing the video, to conclude that the accused had been using it to blackmail the survivor. “The CD retrieved from the spy cam’s memory card contains obscene video of the accused and prosecutrix in a compromising position,” observed fast-track court judge Bhupesh Kumar.

Judge Kumar was of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in proving “beyond reasonable doubt” that accused Rahul Ranjan had made a false promise of marriage and established a physical relationship with the woman. “He prepared an obscene video of the prosecutrix, and under the threat to show the video to others, he demanded sexual favours from the woman in addition to money from time to time,” the court noted.

The court observed that the accused did not contest the charge of him having installed a spy camera at his house. He argued that the forensic evidence, on which the prosecution could have built a case, was amiss. The court, however, observed the gap of one week between the last time the accused and survivor had sex and the latter’s medical examination. “Under these circumstances, it was not possible to collect any medical evidence against the accused. Further in this matter, the accused has not denied having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix,” it said.

He was awarded 20 years of imprisonment under Section 376 (rape) of IPC, and various terms for cheating, criminal intimidation and Section 66 (E) (violation of privacy) of the IT Act.

About the Author