GET Stock QuotesNews18 APP
News18 English
»
1-min read

Delhi HC Dismisses Rape Charge Over 'Inconsistent Statement', Says Slap by Accused was in 'Heat of Moment'

According to the prosecution, at around 7.30 pm on 19th August, 2013, the minor had gone to the accused to collect her arreas. He allegedly called the girl to an adjacent room in the factory, removed her lower apparel and tried to rape her. She raised an alarm but the owner gagged her mouth with his hand.

Debayan Roy | News18.com

Updated:February 14, 2018, 3:36 PM IST
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
Delhi HC Dismisses Rape Charge Over 'Inconsistent Statement', Says Slap by Accused was in 'Heat of Moment'
Representative Picture. (Getty Images)
Loading...
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a charge of rape alleged by a minor against her employer because her statements were ‘inconsistent’ and ruled that a slap by the accused was not an offence as it happened in the “heat of the moment.”

The accused, a factory owner, had stopped paying wages to the then 14-year-old girl in 2013. Even after two months after she had stopped working with the factory, she was not paid the arrears.

According to the prosecution, at around 7.30 pm on 19th August, 2013, she had gone to the accused to collect the amount. He allegedly called the girl to an adjacent room in the factory, removed her lower apparel and tried to rape her. She raised an alarm but the owner gagged her mouth with his hand.

Meanwhile, her mother reached the spot, managed to open the door and rescued her daughter.

Here, the trial court ruled that there were discrepancy in the account of the two. While the girl alleged that only her lower apparel was taken off, her mother, on the other hand, alleged that her daughter was completely naked.

Another inconsistency was that the girl stated that she went to the factory to claim her wages and the owner had thereafter bolted the door from inside, but the mother had stated that she was called to the factory and that the door was not locked.

Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Mehta, decided that there was no ground to appeal as the trial court verdict was not wrong.

As for the slap, the HC ruled that, “As regards to the offence under Section 323 IPC, the trial court is not in error in holding that the slapping of minor by the owner happened in the heat of moment and was trivial, thereby extending the benefit of Section 95 IPC (slight harm) to the respondent.”
| Edited by: Ashish Yechury
Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Loading...