“Why Would I Call Her With Parents If Intent Was Sexual Exploitation?" Asaram Tells Rajasthan High Court In Alleged Rape Case

The Rajasthan High Court recently heard detailed submissions on behalf of self-styled godman Asaram in an alleged rape case, with his counsel attacking the prosecution's sexual assault case as inherently improbable, unsupported by evidence, and rooted in what was described as a “manufactured conspiracy.”

Addressing the bench of Justices Sudesh Bansal and Anil Kumar Upman, the defence argued that the prosecution's narrative fails the test of “normal human conduct.” Counsel questioned the very premise of sexual exploitation, submitting that no person intending to commit such an offence would involve the victim's parents.

It was stated that the children invited to the camp had met Asaram publicly in Haridwar, and that alleged victim herself had stated that children had not been asked to meet Asaram in private.

"Are you stating that in the 161 CrPC statement, it is mentioned that she met him privately and not publicly? Is it your case that in 161 totally different case was there?" the court asked.

Counsel pointed out that the victim had stated in her statement that Asaram had called her to meet him in private and allegedly touched her in 2012.

“If the intent was sexual exploitation, why would I ask the parents to accompany the girl?" counsel argued.

"Wouldn't the parents be alarmed if she were called alone?” the court retorted.

It was further submitted that there was no direct contact between Asaram and either the complainant or her parents during the relevant period.

According to the defence, the only two alleged intermediaries cited by the prosecution have already been acquitted, and even the trial court recorded absence of evidence showing communication. In such circumstances, the essential chain to sustain conspiracy charges under Sections 120B and 370 IPC stood “completely broken.”

The defence told the High Court that the complainant's family travelled on their own from Chhindwara to Shahjahanpur, then to Delhi, and later to Jodhpur in search of Asaram. “If they themselves did not know where he was, how can there be any active participation or pre-arranged conspiracy?” counsel asked.

Referring to the parents' depositions, counsel submitted that both had stated they believed their daughter was “possessed” and had approached Asaram for spiritual assistance. It was argued that this background was overlooked by the trial court while appreciating the facts.

Serious doubts were also cast on the complainant's conduct and the timeline of disclosure. The defence contended that despite alleging that the incident lasted nearly one and a half hours, the girl remained silent that night and disclosed the matter only several days later. “Is this consistent with natural conduct — will parents believe the daughter or a godman?” counsel submitted.

On the medical and forensic front, the defence emphasised that there were no injuries, no signs of penetration, and no corroborative medical findings. No semen traces, fingerprints, or DNA evidence were collected, and no FSL examination was conducted at the scene. Such lapses, it was argued, were “suspicious, shoddy, and fatal to the prosecution.”

The High Court was also told that there were material inconsistencies between the complainant's video statement and her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Certain allegations — including specific acts — were not mentioned in the initial complaint but appeared later, suggesting embellishment, the defence argued.

Suggesting an alternative motive, counsel contended that the complainant, a student in a spiritual school with a strict regimen, may have resisted being sent to an ashram at Asaram's instance and could have been disturbed for personal reasons, including an alleged relationship. This, according to the defence, may have led to false implication.

The defence further questioned the investigation, pointing to the registration of a Zero FIR in Delhi and diary entries showing police visits to the alleged scene even before the FIR was formally lodged. It was also argued that the prosecution's conspiracy theory was inconsistent, with the chargesheet referring to events months after the period during which the alleged conspiracy supposedly began.

Taken together, counsel submitted before the Rajasthan High Court that the absence of scientific evidence, lack of communication links, contradictory statements, and implausible conduct demonstrate that the prosecution's case is “a complete set-up,” and that Asaram has been falsely implicated.

It was submitted that prosecution documents itself ruled out a school visit to Haridwar to visit Asaram. It was submitted they could prve the visit by just showing who went there or by showing tickets. 

It was argued that the police were not carrying out a fair investigation and that when it is made to frame someone, such kinds of evidence are left behind.

Accordinly the court adjourned the matter for further hearing at a later date.

Advocates Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Inamdar along with Revanta Solanki appeared for Asaram