58. The evidence of the prosecutrix, it has been urged, is of sterling quality and is consistent with other evidence collected during the course of trial and matches with the independent records comprising emails, sms, WhatsApp communication and Call Data Records (CDRs). It has been vehemently argued that the prosecutrix categorically said ‘no’ to the advances of the appellant when he began to kiss her and also pushed him away. The statement of the prosecutrix clearly reveals that while the appellant attempted to disrobe her, she kept on pulling her underwear up. It was only because of the physical strength of the appellant that he pinned the prosecutrix down and forced oral sex on her.

59. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix has drawn special attention to the statement of the prosecutrix where she has said that she became scared and a thought passed in her mind that she would also meet the same fate as Nirbhaya and therefore, she faked an orgasm because she wanted to end the traumatic encounter. In the first communication to the appellant after the incident, the prosecutrix made him known that the act was against her will and without her consent and therefore was a grave violation of her sexuality, which was totally unacceptable to her. In fact, in her deposition, the prosecutrix has vividly stated about the act of the appellant upon her.

60. In so far as the other material particulars of the case matching with the version of the prosecutrix is concerned, it has been submitted that on 28.03.2015, the appellant had spoken to the prosecutrix over phone and had invited her to his house for dinner in the evening. Later, the programme was changed and the appellant informed the prosecutrix that they would be going to a wedding and also asked her to bring Rs.1,000/- as gift for the wedding. In the night of 28.03.2015, while for a brief period, when the appellant was alone in the company of the prosecutrix, he subjected her to rape. Immediately after the rape, the prosecutrix communicated with the Danish Hussaini (PW10), a common friend of the appellant and her and informed him that something untowards had happened which had made her upset and that she urgently needed to speak to him. After leaving the house of the appellant, the prosecutrix gave PW.10, on telephone, the detailed version of how the appellant had violated her bodily integrity. This conversation lasted for over half an hour. All these sequence of events have been cogently narrated by the prosecutrix in her deposition before the Trial Court.

61. The fact that the appellant wrote back to the prosecutrix expressing his apology is an indication of an acceptance of the guilt of the appellant and it has to be read as an admission and subsequent conduct of the appellant, under section 8 of the Evidence Act.

62. In the WhatsApp conversation between the prosecutrix and her friend Mathangi Krishnamurthy (Ex.PW.3-C/16) and her email to her academic advisor Allison Busch (Ex.PW.3-C/14 & 15), the prosecutrix has laid bare her heart and mind regarding the trauma faced by her. Thereafter, the email of the prosecutrix to the appellant further establishes that the occurrence had taken place as alleged and she made it clearly known to the appellant that she is going to prosecute him. The wife of the appellant replied to her email which also indicates that she accepted the accusation and believed her statement. The email exchanged between the wife of the appellant and the return of the email have been exhibited as Ex.PW.3-C/11 and Ex.PW.3-C/13. In April, 2015, the prosecutrix reported about the rape to Columbia University, Department of Gender based misconduct and also informed one Adam Grotski (Head of Fulbright Administration) that she has been sexually assaulted and had returned to US to cope with the post-incident trauma. Since the visa was not extended, the prosecutrix obtained a tourist visa, only for the purposes of lodging the complaint against the appellant.

63. It has been argued th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document