“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”. – Delhi High Court
By- Anish Khondo, 5th Year Law Student at Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bangalore
The prosecutrix, in this case, was a married woman who furnished a statement that the accused blackmailed her to have physical relations with him by threatening her and showing her nude photos and videos of her. “According to the prosecutrix between 29 September 2016 till May 2019 the petitioner kept on making physical relations with her by showing her nude photographs and again he made physical relations with her on 6 December, 2019”. It was also noted that the prosecutrix never tried to complain about this incident for the past 3 years.
Advocate Sahil Mongia appeared for the accused (petitioner) here and claimed that the statement about the blackmail and showing nude photos and videos were false.
It was also stated that it was a consensual relationship which is evident from the fact that respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix) has got the name of the petitioner permanently tattooed on her forearm which shows her love towards the petitioner.
It was said that “that respondent No. 2 has clicked selfies with the petitioner, exchanged garlands with him, attended festivities and celebrated functions which is evident from the photographs filed on record. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has even sent friend request to the petitioner on face book.”
It was also said that the house in which the prosecutrix claimed to have been kept by the petitioner was in fact let out to the prosecutrix.
The Court further stated that “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.”
Further, the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized but no nude photographs were found. The status report of the accused’s phone records showed that there was no recording of threats as alleged by the prosecutrix.
“There is a delay in registration of FIR, though delay is not fatal in every case but at this stage, no opinion is being expressed on the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR,” observed the Court.
Lastly, after examining all the circumstances of the case the Court granted bail to the accused 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.