HC Asks MP Counsel to Ascertain Whether Woman was Consenting or Not in ‘Rape’ Video Shot by Her
HC Asks MP Counsel to Ascertain Whether Woman was Consenting or Not in ‘Rape’ Video Shot by Her
The woman had alleged that the accused pressured her to establish physical relations with him as her husband had failed to get the accused a land as promised

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench has recently ordered the state counsel to ascertain whether the woman was consenting or reluctant in the video shot by herself pertaining to a rape case.

The bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan passed the order in a plea moved by the accused.

The alleged victim, a married woman, had filed an FIR against a man alleging that he raped her. In her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the victim alleged that she had herself made a video of the purported rape by the accused.

Taking note of this fact, the court asked the counsel for the state to call for the Investigation Officer with the pen drive containing the said video and peruse the same in the Advocate General Officer without saving the file to their machine.

“Thereafter, return the pen-drive to IO and place a report before the court on whether the action of the prosecutrix reveals consent or resistance to the alleged act or whether she appears to be a consenting and cooperating partner in the act”, the court ordered.

According to the prosecution case, the woman and her husband were involved in a land deal with the accused for Rs 9 lakh.

However, when the woman’s husband failed to get the promised land to the accused and also could not return the money, the accused started threatening the couple. The accused allegedly pressured the woman to establish physical relations with him.

The woman said amid the threats, the man allegedly raped her, which she recorded, and then registered an FIR against him.

Read all the Latest India News here

Original news source

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://hapka.info/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!