Spiritual guru, 2 others discharged in gangrape case


A self-styled spiritual figure, accused of raping his disciple, has been discharged along with two others by a Delhi court on grounds of an “unexplained delay” of almost two years in lodging an FIR in the case.

Spiritual guruAdditional Sessions Judge Praveen Kumar let off the man, his son and a disciple, co-accused in the case, for allegedly raping the woman and threatening her at knife-point in 2014.

“I have gone through the case file. In the present case, the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 20 months and there is no reasonable justification for the same which is fatal to the prosecution…Delay sometimes affords opportunity to complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications,” the judge said.

The court noted that the woman neither raised an alarm immediately after the incident, nor was there any medical evidence to support her allegations.

“Prosecutrix neither raised alarm/hue and cry nor immediately lodged report with the police against alleged forcible sex. She approached the police on 28 May, 2016 and lodged the complaint with the police after considerable unexplained delay,” it said.

It further said, “the evidentiary value of the medical evidence is zero. The knife allegedly used for threatening the prosecutrix and the alleged obscene photographs were not recovered by the prosecution during the investigation.”

According to prosecution, the woman was allegedly raped by her Delhi-based religious guru and two others on 24 October, 2014. She had alleged that they molested and threatened to kill her too.

An FIR was lodged in May 2016 against them for offences under sections 376D (gangrape), 506 (threat) and 354 (molestation) of the IPC and charge sheet was filed. The accused had pleaded innocence and claimed they were falsely implicated by the woman.

The court, which discharged the accused of rape charges, however, directed them to appear before magisterial court for a decision on the other charges levelled against them.

“Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the materials placed before the Court do not disclose grave suspicion against all the accused for framing charge against them for committing offence punishable under Section 376D of IPC. Accordingly, all the accused are discharged for the offence of 376D of IPC only.

“Other offences are triable by the Court of metropolitan magistrate. Accused are directed to appear before the Court of concerned MM who shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law,” the ASJ said.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here