The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to a rape accused whose name was found tattooed on the forearm of the prosecutrix (Sanjay vs State).
While the prosecutrix claimed that the tattoo was forcefully engraved when she was in captivity in the accused’s house, the Court observed that it was not easy to make such a tattoo which was on the forearm of the prosecutrix if there was some resistance.
“In my opinion, making of tattoo is an art and special machine is required for the same. Moreover, it is also not easy to make such a tattoo which is on the forearm of the complainant if there is some resistance from the other side. It is not everybody’s job and it is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner had anything to do with the tattoo business,” the Court said.
In the present case, the prosecutrix was a married woman who alleged that the accused forced her to have physical relations with him by threatening and blackmailing her on the basis of nude photos and videos.
As per the prosecutrix, the physical relation continued from 2016 till 2019.
The accused, who was in judicial custody since June 2020, claimed that he and the prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship and the FIR was registered only after she failed to convince him to maintain ties.
To support his claim, the accused inter alia not only showed that his name was permanently tattooed on the prosecutrix’s forearm but also submitted that she clicked selfies with him, exchanged garlands, attended festivities and celebrated functions and even sent a friend request to him on Facebook.
During the long period of their association, no complaint was ever made to the husband, it wad added.
To arrive at its conclusion, the Court took into account the presence of the tattoo on the prosecutrix’s forearm bearing accused’s name.
The Court also noted that as per the chargesheet filed in the case, the house where the prosecutrix was allegedly held in captivity was taken on rent by the prosecutrix herself and as per the landlord, she resided there alone.
The Court further recorded that at the time of arrest, the mobile phone of the accused was seized but no nude photographs were found.
No recording of threats, as alleged by the prosecutrix, was recovered either, the Court added.
In view of the above, the Court admitted the accused to bail.
“Without commenting on the merits, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below.”
Advocate Sahil Mongia appeared for the accused. Advocate Anil Devlal appeared for the prosecutrix. The State was presented by APP Rajni Gupta.