The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of substantial evidence to substantiate charges under the IPC, and the importance of consistency and reliability in the victim's testimony.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The State has filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal against a judgment dated 18.09.2019, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Patiala House Courts had acquitted the respondent of the offences under Sections 376/506 of the IPC. The State contends that the Trial Court had erred in not appreciating that the testimony of the victim had been consistent with reference to the fact that the respondent had tried to establish physical relationship with the victim on the threat of disseminating an obscene video and distressed by such threats, the victim had jumped from the terrace/fourth floor of a building and fractured her legs.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim was friends with the respondent since 2012. On 11.05.2014, the respondent had taken her to Gurgaon on the pretext that he had to return some articles to his cousin brother - Amit. The victim alleged that on the said date, the respondent had established physical relations with her by promising her that he would marry her. On 21.05.2014, the respondent told her that a video had been made of them in a compromising position and that the said video was in the custody of his brother Amit. The said revelation shocked her and she tried to commit suicide. However, the respondent persuaded her not to do so by promising to marry her. The victim also alleged that on 23.05.2014 at about 4:30 am, the respondent called her to the terrace and allegedly harassed her by trying to touch her in an inappropriate manner. To avoid such harassment, the victim jumped from the terrace.

3. Thereafter, the victim made a complaint and consequently, FIR No. 1038/2014 under Sections 376/506 of the IPC was registered with PS Vasant Vihar. Subsequently, charges under Sections 376/506 of the IPC were framed and the respondent pleaded not guilty to the said charges and the matter was set down for trial.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses.

5. The Trial Court noted that the first incident, as alleged, had taken place on 11.05.2014, whereas, the last incident had taken place on 23.05.2014. However, the complaint was made on 19.09.2014, which was after a delay of four months. No explanation was provided in the complaint regarding the delay in lodging the said FIR.

6. In her deposition, the victim had stated that she had come to know from certain persons that the father of the respondent had been threatening her and her family that they would be harmed, if she was to make a complaint against the respondent. However, she did not state the name of the persons from whom she had heard the said threats. The Trial Court held that there was an inordinate delay in filing of the said FIR and the explanation regarding the delay in filing the same did not inspire any confidence. And, in the given circumstances, it was necessary to scrutinize the prosecution''s case.

7. To ascertain the veracity of the prosecution case, the police had obtained CDRs of both the respondent and the victim. The Trial Court examined the CDRs from the period between 01.05.2014 and 23.05.2014. On perusing the same, the Trial Court noted that the respondent and the victim used to talk to each other frequently for long hours and such calls would extend from late at night till wee hours in the morning. The Trial Court also noted that the victim had admitted that the respondent and the victim were in a relationship since March, 2014. On the basis of her statement and the CDR records, the Trial Court concluded that the respondent and the victim were involved in a consensual relationship with each other.

8. The Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to examine the evidence with reference to the incident dated 11.05.2014. The victim had alleged that on the said date, the respondent had called her and asked her to accompany him to his brother''s house to deliver some articles. She was waiting downstairs and thereafter, the respondent had called