Court acquits former Delhi minister in 2016 rape case

NEW DELHI: Former Delhi minister Sandeep Kumar , who was accused of raping a woman in 2016, was acquitted by a Delhi court on Wednesday.

Kumar, who was an MLA from Sultanpuri and a minister in Delhi govt, was suspended from Aam Aadmi Party after his objectionable video with the woman surfaced. Later, he had to resign from his minister post too. Last month, he had joined Haryana BJP but was expelled from the party within hours.

The court of Special Judge Kaveri Baweja, in its 68-page order dated Sept 11, said the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the realm of reasonable doubt and the complainant failed to support the case of the prosecution.

The court noted that the complainant, while being examined by the prosecution, said no such incident had taken place and she never visited Kumar's house. She also said that she never got any case registered with police and she had a ration card before 2016.

Noting that the complainant turned hostile, who undoubtedly is the most important witness of the prosecution, the court observed, "It is apparent that she even failed to support the case of the prosecution with regard to the allegations that the accused, in exchange for getting issued the ration card/BPL card to her, sexually exploited her as alleged. There is also not even a whisper in the entire statement of the prosecutrix that the accused assured to settle her family by ensuring employment of her children."

Being confronted with the complaint filed by her dated Sept 3, 2016, she denied that she ever lodged any such complaint against Kumar.

The court said the medical evidence fails to establish the allegations under sections 376 (rape) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence) against Kumar. The cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses has brought about glaring discrepancies in the investigation of the case and the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the form of pen drives has also not been found to be admissible in evidence, it added.

Despite the complainant turning hostile, the prosecution insisted that it had a case against Kumar on the basis of video evidence available in two pen drives. The prosecution, relying on the video recordings in the pen drives that were played in court, pointed out that the persons who appear in the video were Kumar and the complainant. The complainant, however, denied being in the video.

The court said that "there is no iota of evidence on record to establish who had transferred the said video recordings in the pen drives, making the authenticity of the pen drives extremely doubtful."