Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat also held that woman had no complaint against him, as after the incident also she continued buying goods on credit basis from his shop and even borrowed Rs 2,000 from his mother.
"It is apparent from the testimony of prosecutrix (woman) that she neither raised alarm at the time of incident nor offered any resistance. As per her testimony, there had been some talks between her and the accused (man) before he started sexual assault upon her. She could have raised alarm and shouted for help but she did not do so.
"...This was sufficient to raise doubts in her minds about the intention of the accused and she could have shouted for help as soon as she had first seen him in her room in that condition. The conduct of the prosecutrix, as reflected from her testimony, is highly unnatural," the judge said.
According to the police, the accused, who was running a grocery shop, had raped the woman in March 2013 when she was at her house in west Delhi with her children.
"One day in the month of March, 2013 at about midnight or 1 AM, she was present in her room along with her children, who were sleeping. Her husband had gone out for some work. She went outside the house near the drain to answer the nature's call and meanwhile, accused had quietly entered her room which she did not know.
"When she returned to the room, she saw him. The accused told her that he would not demand due money if she allows him to have intercourse with her," the woman had told the police, adding that thereafter she was raped by the accused.
The man threatened her that it would not be good for her if she disclosed the incident to anybody and then left, the woman had alleged.
However, the accused claimed innocence and told the court during the trial that he was falsely implicated.
The court observed that "the woman has admitted in her cross examination that she had visited the shop of the accused and purchased goods from him on credit basis about 5 or 6 days after the incident of rape also.
"She also deposed that thereafter on one day, she had gone to his house and had taken Rs 2,000 from his mother to be given to the landlord as advance rent. I am unable to fathom or discern such conduct of the prosecutrix," the judge said.
"This only establishes that she had no complaint against the accused and for this reason, she continued to buy goods on credit basis from his shop even after alleged incident of rape," he added.