Fabricated Case, Co-Accused Acquitted; Not A Single Call To Link Me To Victim: Asaram Tells Rajasthan High Court In Rape Case

In an appeal arising out of the conviction of self-styled godman Asaram, the defence mounted a sustained attack on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the parents of the prosecutrix, contending that their testimonies were riddled with contradictions, embellishments and demonstrably false claims which strike at the root of the prosecution's case.

Counsel argued that the parents were fully aware of the appellant's movements and had prior knowledge that he was in Jodhpur at the relevant time. Referring to the cross-examination of the mother, counsel submitted that she admitted the father would regularly ascertain where the appellant was conducting satsangs before travelling.

When the division bench of Justices Arun Monga and Yogendra Kumar Purohit, interjected that this appeared to be an “omnibus” submission lacking specificity, counsel maintained that the admission, read with the surrounding evidence, showed that “two versions are possible at every step,” and therefore the trial court could not have recorded a conviction.

A significant plank of the defence case concerned the alleged involvement of one Shiva, who was Asaram's close aide. According to the prosecution, the parents repeatedly contacted Shiva for assistance upon reaching Delhi.

However, counsel pointed to call detail records to show that there were “zero outgoing calls” to Shiva. “If they say they repeatedly called him, why do the records show none?” he asked. The Court noted the absence of outgoing calls and queried what Shiva had stated in his deposition, to which counsel responded that Shiva had been acquitted as the trial court found no material linking him to the offence. It was argued that the parents invoked Shiva's name merely to create an artificial link between the appellant and the alleged incident.

The defence further highlighted inconsistencies in the sequence of events. While the mother claimed they contacted Shiva after reaching Delhi, the father stated that Shiva had in fact called them first when they were at the Jodhpur railway station. These shifting versions, counsel submitted, showed that the witnesses were “spinning a story” to explain their presence and movements. “If the prosecution witnesses are lying at every stage, their evidence must be taken with circumspection,” he argued, adding that the case was built on “falsified evidence and post-event reconstruction.”

Questioning the allegation of sexual assault itself, counsel submitted that the narrative was inherently improbable. He contended that the appellant never met girls privately and that the “ghost possession” story was fabricated to justify how the prosecutrix allegedly came into contact with him. Even entry into the ashram required permission, he said, and the prosecution's claim that Shiva facilitated access was unsupported by any objective evidence.

Addressing the charge under Section 370 IPC (trafficking), counsel argued that the essential ingredients were wholly absent. The prosecutrix and her family had travelled of their own volition; there was no transportation, concealment, or “harbouring” in the legal sense.

Harbouring, he stressed, connotes a physical act of sheltering to evade apprehension, not a spiritual or religious interaction. When the Bench observed that providing shelter during the purported exorcism process might constitute contextual harbouring, counsel disagreed, insisting that the trial court had stretched the provision beyond its statutory meaning.

The defence also attacked the prosecution's theory of conspiracy, submitting that once alleged co-accused persons like Shiva had been acquitted for want of evidence, the chain of causation stood broken. “I cannot conspire with myself,” counsel remarked, adding that cherry-picking the appellant for conviction after others were exonerated was legally impermissible. The Investigating Officer, he noted, admitted during cross-examination that there was no follow-up by certain witnesses at the relevant time, further weakening the prosecution's case.

Counsel emphasised that several potentially material witnesses were not examined and relevant call data was not produced despite court directions. He argued that even the prosecutrix's subsequent conduct — including extensive mobile communication with a former teacher after the alleged incident — was suppressed by the prosecution, though it could have shed light on her state of mind. “Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof,” he submitted.

Throughout the hearing, the Bench repeatedly cautioned the defence against over-reading portions of testimony and observed that contextual interpretation of evidence would ultimately determine whether the inconsistencies were material or merely minor.

The matter remains part heard and was posted for hearing at a later date.