Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and gone through the evidence on record.

34. It certainly appears on going through the testimony of the Prosecutrix 'PS' that she lived at various places including hotel Hari Kripa at Pahar Ganj and in a rented house at Jaipur with Accused out of her own will.

35. It is noteworthy that Prosecutrix PW4 claimed that she did not disclose about the alleged rape committed by the Accused upon her as the Accused had threatened to upload her objectionable photographs/MMS on the internet. However, the Prosecutrix in her entire testimony, did not even whisper that she had ever seen any such MMS or objectionable photographs or that Accused even showed her at any point of time. It is also pertinent to note that as per her own claim, she was unconscious when Accused allegedly committed raped upon her on 12.07.2012 in the hotel. Hence, it cannot be accepted that she had seen Accused making any such objectionable photographs/MMS. Moreover, Prosecution failed to bring on record any scientific evidence for proving that mobile phone of the Accused which was seized during the course of investigation had any such objectionable photograph or MMS of the Prosecutrix. Rather, as per report of FSL Computer Forensic Unit Ex. PW6/K, the facility to examine mobile phones was not available in FSL laboratory and data could not be retrieved. Significantly, the Investigating Agency made no further attempt to send mobile phone of the Accused to any other laboratory in order to verify where it had any photographs or MMS of the Prosecutrix. Accordingly, it is apparent that Prosecution has completely fail to establish its case that Accused had any objectionable photographs or MMS of the Prosecutrix.