The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction and 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Mahila Court on the proprietor of a consultancy firm for having allegedly raped his Human Resource coordinator. It held that the prosecution case was unreliable and there was not sufficient evidence to confirm the conviction and the sentence.
Justice G. Jayachandran allowed an appeal preferred by Antony John Milton in 2014 against the Chennai Mahila Court’s October 7, 2014 judgment and set aside the conviction as well as sentences imposed with respect to the charges of rape, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and harassment. He also ordered refund of the fine amount.
According to the victim, she was recruited by the private firm on April 2, 2012 and the appellant raped her in his chambers at 7. 30 a.m. on April 14, 2012 after spraying a sedative drug which led her to a semi conscious state. He also shot her nude photographs on that day and used them to coerce her to have sex with him on several occasions thereafter.
On the other hand, the appellant, in his defence relied upon the closed circuit television (CCTV) camera footage of his office to claim that there was a walk-in-interview at 9:30 a.m. on April 14, 2012 and the complainant could be seen moving around cheerfully in the office on the day when the alleged rape took place.
He also said that the police did not seize his mobile phone to find out if there were any nude photographs of the complainant in it. After hearing both sides, Justice Jayachandran said there were contradictions in the evidence adduced by the complainant and that it did not corroborate with the medical evidence too.
Further, the Mahila Court itself had acquitted the appellant from the charge of having assaulted the complainant. “This indicates that the complainant is not a wholly reliable witness and her testimony cannot be accepted without proper corroboration,” the judge said and pointed out that she and her mother had visited the appellant before approaching the police on May 2, 2012.
“The delay in lodging the complaint for an incident that took place on April 14, 2012 besides the complainant having attending the office of the accused till April 29, 2012 and thereafter visiting the office on May 2, 2012 after sending an SMS to the accused creates doubt about the prosecution case,” the judge wrote.
