Man can sue if rape charge is proved wrong: Delhi Additional Session Court’s Judge Nivedita Anil Sharma

New Delhi: The Delhi based Additional Session Court’s Woman Judge- Nivedita Anil Sharma said while deciding the case of rape against a man, that when the laws are misused by the women in rape cases, then “nobody talks about the dignity of the affected man”.

The comments were made by the Judge, while acquitting the Man after holding that ‘nobody talks about the dignity and honour of Man’.

She further said that the time has now arrived to make laws for protecting and restoring the “dignity of Men” who are falsely charged with the rape cases, as everyone is just fighting to get protection in favour of the honour of the women.

Moreover, she also commented that the Some of the women, for whom the protective laws are being made, but they misuse such laws. And also there can be seen no one talking about the dignity and honour of a man.

The man who was acquitted in this case, was charged for raping the Women known to him in Uttam Nagar area of West Delhi. The incident was allegedly taken place in the year 2013. Moreover the Court also says, man can sue the woman if rape charge is proved wrong against her.

Thus, in such situations, the accused may be having option, if advised, then to file any case for damages against the prosecutrix. Moreover, it is often considered that the dignity and honour of the accused can be restored, non even he can be compensated for humiliation, etc. but, his acquittal may give him some solace.

The said Judge was also found saying that the laws are made often for protecting women, and such woman can also misuse such laws, however, the Judge said, “where is the law to protect a man from such a woman” in the cases where such men are being prosecuted and falsely implicated.

In the present case, as per prosecutions story, the Woman- prosecutor had alleged that she was raped by a man in the year 2013 and also she was sexually assaulted. However, the Man claimed to be innocent, but he admitted that he knew the woman for five years and she was trying to extort money from him. Moreover, he further contended that the physical relations between them were consensual.

However, the court has observed that in the Woman’s Statements there were several contradictions, which were not reliable.

Adv. Faim Khalilkhan Pathan