'If Victim Was Asking About My Location, How Can I Be Accused Of Trafficking?' Asaram Tells Rajasthan High Court In Rape Case

Contending that the prosecution's own evidence shows the victim and her parents travelled independently and without any inducement or direction from him, self-styled godman Asaram on Tuesday told the Rajasthan High Court that the essential ingredients of trafficking and gang rape are not made out in the present case.

Arguing that there was neither a “meeting of minds” nor any overt act attributable to him that caused the alleged movement of the victim, counsel submitted that Sections 370 and 376D IPC cannot be attracted.

A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit repeatedly asked the defence to move beyond broad allegations of conspiracy and demonstrate specific legal infirmities in the prosecution's narrative.

Opening his submissions, counsel for the appellant argued that the investigation suffered from serious omissions, with several persons central to the prosecution story never examined. Particular emphasis was placed on a girl named Bhavya, who allegedly told the victim she was “possessed by ghosts” and needed to be taken to Asaram.

Despite being projected as the trigger for the entire episode, neither Bhavya nor her family was examined, and no record shows that the Investigating Officer attempted to contact them. The trial court itself had noted the absence of any such effort. According to the defence, when direct evidence is lacking, the prosecution must present strong corroborative material, which is missing here. “As an accused, I cannot prove the negative. The prosecution must prove its case,” counsel submitted.

The defence also attacked the prosecution's reliance on alleged phone calls made by the hostel warden Shilpi to the parents. It was argued that call detail records do not conclusively establish that the calls originated from warden Shilpi's number and instead suggest the use of common hostel or institutional phones.

Statements of the parents and the hostel warden indicated shared numbers, yet the prosecution did not prove who actually used them. These inconsistencies, counsel argued, weaken the theory that the victim was lured or trafficked through coordinated communication. The Bench observed, however, that in the digital age the registered owner of a number may not necessarily be its user.

Developing his core submission on trafficking, counsel argued that the movement of the victim and her parents was entirely voluntary. They allegedly travelled from Shahjahanpur on their own and first went to Delhi based on information given by one Shiva, who has since been acquitted.

“I was sitting in Jodhpur, aloof. I had no idea they were coming,” counsel submitted, adding that Shiva himself could not even tell them where Asaram was. After failing to find him in Delhi, they later learnt he was in Jodhpur. “If I had any role, why would they first go to Delhi? Why would I do this so openly? I would have simply called them to Jodhpur,” the defence argued.

It was further submitted that even as per the prosecution's version, the victim called Shiva after reaching Delhi and only then discovered Asaram's whereabouts. He did not ask her to come to Jodhpur. “If they are asking where Asaram is and how to reach him, how can he be accused of trafficking them?” counsel asked, arguing that merely providing information about someone's location cannot amount to trafficking or harbouring. Trafficking, he stressed, requires an overt act from the accused's side. “If I can show there was no meeting of minds and no overt act on my side causing their movement, there is no question of Sections 370 or 376D,” he said.

Counsel also argued that offences like trafficking are typically clandestine. “In trafficking there is secrecy. One does not call everyone and do it so openly,” he submitted, contending that the prosecution's own narrative — of the family openly travelling, making enquiries, and moving from place to place in search of him — is inconsistent with the nature of such crimes.

On the gang rape charge, the defence maintained that there is no evidence of collective action or coordinated participation. The only alleged link to Asaram was through a cook, Prakash, who has been acquitted. Without proof of common intention or “meeting of minds”, the charge of gang rape cannot survive, it was argued. Counsel described the prosecution's case as resting on suspicion rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The defence counsel stated that Asaram had “led a spotless life” and that “all people suffer sometimes, as he is now, and will come out of this,” asserting that he wished to clear his name of all charges.

The Bench, however, posed pointed questions, observing that where followers act out of blind faith, they may attempt to trace a spiritual leader across multiple locations. The judges suggested that associates directing them from place to place could still be relevant and asked what motive several persons would have to falsely implicate the accused. The defence responded that with Shiva acquitted and no direct link established, the alleged chain stands broken.

The matter remains part-heard and will continue with further submissions tomorrow.