Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38. Further the learned counsel for the accused tried to bring to the notice of this court that in the evidence of PW3, he deposed that accused always used to pick up quarrel with his wife and therefore PW3 and the complainant thought of lodging a complaint against the accused. Accordingly they have lodged the complaint against the accused by falsely implicating this accused that he has committed rape on his own daughter. On going through the evidence of PW3, it is true that in the evidence of PW3, he deposed that the accused always used to picked up quarrel with his wife. Apart from the said evidence, PW3 also deposed that the accused committed rape on his own daughter. Therefore, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused that as PW3 has deposed that the accused always used to picked up quarrel with his wife, they lodged false complaint against this accused, is not sustainable and therefore the said argument is not acceptable.

In the decision reported in 1990 Cri.L.J 1434 Himachala Pradesh High Court wherein it is observed that:

"Parents of a tender age girl cannot, at all, be expected to set up such a false case."

Similarly, in the decision reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 710 [SC], it is observed that:

"Sec.375 IPC-Rape-false implication of accused-normally improbable-Rape leaves a permanent scar and has a serious psychological impact on victim and also her family members- No one would normally concoct a story of rape just to falsely implicate a person".