18BBL048

MOVIE ANALYSIS
S.375
 FACTS- The movie is about trial of a film director Rohan Khurana who is convicted
on charges of rape of Anjali Dangle, by session’s court and it held accused liable
under S.375 among other charges of beating etc. Appeal is filed at High Court.

- PROSEUTION- On 8th July 2018, victim is sent to accused (her boss’) home by a
senior colleague to get approval on some costumes. Where Rohan asks her servant
to go out and then allegedly he rapes her.

 EVIDENCES IN MOVIE AND ITS RELATION WITH RULES OF

EVIDENCE-

- At police station victim was called for assault history and physical examination where
doctor asked various questions and recorded victim’s statement (Oral Evidence u/s 3).
S.114 A court ‘shall’ presume the guilt of accused in cases of rape and as victim
statement when examined in light of medical reports and cross examination, can
inspire the confidence of court.

- Then pictures (Electronic Evidence) of both prosecutrix and defendant were taken for
identification of injuries on the body.

- The medical report (Documentary Evidence u/s 6) proves presence of semen and
public hair in victim’s private parts; DNA reports (Documentary evidence) confirm
that it matches with accused, as this affirms with the victim’s testimony proving that
accused and victim had sexual intercourse. The only issue is that whether the
intercourse was with or without consent.

- The investigating officer of this case was a corrupt police officer who had custody of
Material Evidence of the bed sheet which had stains of semen, hair strands of victim
and dried mogra flowers, with him for 5 days, Defence argued that evidence cannot be
allowed as chain of custody is broken and police can tamper the evidence. Court held,
as police has no scientific knowledge or mental acumen to tamper, evidence allowed.
- The marks on back of accused ( which victim said, that she resisted giving such marks
to him) indicates passionate intercourse and not assault, as in resisting one hits on
frontal body to push accused away. Inferring that intercourse was consensual and was
not rape.

Marks on the back of accused

- On 8th, Savi (house help) enters lift at 1:18 comes back at 11:40, Thus the entire
duration of the alleged offence is of only 22 minutes, Defence creates a reasonable
doubt that are 22 min enough for the commission of this offence, hinting that
intercourse was consensual.

- At the date of alleged incident victim had no mogra flowers on, but victim on 4 th July,
the CCTV (Electronic Evidence) of lift on indicates that she was wearing mogra
flowers. The evidence was dried mogra found on accused bed, inferred that they had
intercourse on 4th as well which was consensual, proving that they had affair.

- CONCLUSION
Accused admitted that they had affair and on 8 th July they had intercourse but it was
consensual and victim filed a false charge of rape to seek revenge. The court did not
accept the admission of accused as the admission is not sole basis, other evidences
also needs to support the testimony of the admission.
Pictures of lobby, shows that victim used staircase and not lift. The relevance of using
staircase is that as no CCTV, she gave herself injuries on inner thighs via railing, hit
her head on wall. This is the circumstantial evidence as well as it proves the
subsequent conduct of victim w.r.t fact in issue u/s 8, but as it’s not beyond
reasonable doubt, the court held that as per strict provision accused will be held
guilty.