It said that the prosecution case is unreliable due to the delay in registering the FIR and the contradiction in the evidence produced by the complainant.
It said that the prosecution case is unreliable due to the delay in registering the FIR and the contradiction in the evidence produced by the complainant.
The Madras High Court has quashed the conviction and rigorous imprisonment of 10 years imposed by a women’s court on the owner of a consultancy firm for allegedly raping his HR coordinator. It held that the prosecution case was unreliable and there was insufficient evidence to confirm the conviction and sentence.
Justice G. Jayachandran in 2014 allowed an appeal filed by Antony John Milton against the 7 October 2014 judgment of the Chennai Women’s Court and the conviction with respect to the charges of rape, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and harassment. Canceled. He also ordered the 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 their chambers on April 14, 2012 at 7.30 a.m. after spraying her with a sedative drug, leaving her in a subconscious state . He also took nude pictures of her that day and used her to have sex with her on several occasions after that.
On the other hand, the appellant in his defense relied on the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera footage of his office to claim that the walk-in-interview took place on 14th April, 2012 at 9:30 am and the complainant had taken place on the day the alleged rape took place. Can be seen roaming happily in the office that day.
He also said that the police did not confiscated his mobile phone to ascertain whether there were nude photographs of the complainant. After hearing both the sides, Justice Jayachandran observed that there was contradiction in the evidence produced by the complainant and it was not corroborated even with medical evidence.
Further, the women’s court itself acquitted the appellant of the charge of assault on the complainant. “This indicates that the complainant is not a completely credible witness and that her testimony cannot be accepted without proper corroboration,” the judge said and pointed out that she and her mother on May 2, 2012 He had met the appellant before approaching the police.
“Besides the delay in registering the complaint for an incident that happened on 14th April, 2012, the complainant had been present in the office of the accused till 29th April, 2012 and thereafter visited the office after sending an SMS to the accused on 2nd May, 2012. Apart from this, the prosecution raises doubts about the case,” the judge wrote.