9月9日，法院對一樁「男子與前女友分手後被告強姦案」進行一審的第二次開庭審理。案件的爭議焦點集中在證據鏈是否完整可靠，以及女方的指控是否成立。

據了解，男方與女方曾是情侶關係，後因矛盾分手。男方家屬在庭審過程中提出諸多質疑，直指女方指控的真實性存在嚴重疑點。他們強調，女方提交的唯一物證是一條牛仔裙，但該裙子並非案發時所穿，且經檢驗後並未檢出與案件相關的DNA痕跡。對此，男方家屬懇求法院能夠依法還男方清白。家屬還進一步提出懷疑，認為女方的指控背後，或許涉及彩禮分歧。他們指出，雙方在分手後關於彩禮問題並未達成共識，這可能成為女方誣告男方的動機。這一說法在社會輿論中引發兩極化的爭論，一方面，有人認為男方家屬的質疑合乎邏輯，應該嚴格依靠證據來定罪；另一方面，也有人強調，強姦案涉及女性的隱私和心理創傷，不應過早懷疑受害者的證詞，而應全面、細緻地審查案件細節。

整體而言，此案最大的爭點就在於證據鏈的薄弱。女方的指控是否能經得起司法審查，將成為判決的核心。牛仔裙作為唯一物證，既非案發時穿著，且無相關DNA痕跡，這樣的證據能否成立，將直接影響案件的走向。隨著二次開庭的進行，社會對案件的關注度進一步升溫。一些網民擔心，如果案件處理不公，可能導致真正的受害者難以伸張正義，甚至影響社會對性侵案件受害者的信任；同時，也有人憂慮，若存在誣告，則會對無辜者造成無法挽回的傷害，更會對社會法治的公信力造成衝擊。

這起案件，無論最終結果如何，已經將「證據鏈完整性」與「誣告可能性」推到輿論的風口浪尖，也折射出中國社會在處理性侵案件時，如何在保障女性權益與維護司法公正之間取得平衡的深層困境。

This case in Xinyang, Henan, has drawn widespread public attention due to its sensitive nature. On September 9, the court held the second hearing of a first-instance trial involving a man accused of raping his ex-girlfriend after their breakup. The core controversy of the case lies in whether the chain of evidence is solid and whether the woman’s accusations can be substantiated.

According to reports, the man and woman had been in a relationship but later broke up due to conflicts. During the trial, the man’s family raised numerous questions, directly challenging the authenticity of the woman’s claims. They emphasized that the only piece of physical evidence submitted by the woman was a denim skirt. However, this skirt was not the one she wore at the time of the alleged incident, and forensic tests did not detect any DNA traces related to the case. The man’s family therefore pleaded with the court to clear his name in accordance with the law.

The family further suggested that the accusation may be connected to a dispute over betrothal gifts. They claimed that disagreements regarding the bride price after the breakup might have motivated the woman to falsely accuse the man of rape. This argument has triggered polarized reactions in public opinion. On one side, some believe the man’s family’s doubts are logical and that convictions must be based strictly on evidence. On the other, many stress that rape cases involve victims’ privacy and psychological trauma, and that a woman’s testimony should not be dismissed prematurely; instead, all case details must be thoroughly reviewed.

The case essentially hinges on the weakness of the evidence chain. Whether the woman’s accusations can withstand judicial scrutiny will be central to the verdict. Since the denim skirt was not worn during the alleged assault and contains no relevant DNA evidence, the admissibility and weight of this evidence will directly determine the case’s outcome.

As the second hearing proceeds, public scrutiny has intensified. Some worry that if mishandled, the case could deter genuine victims from seeking justice and erode trust in legal protections for survivors of sexual assault. Others fear that if a false accusation is proven, it could cause irreparable harm to an innocent person and undermine the credibility of the legal system.

Regardless of the final judgment, this case has already thrust issues such as “the integrity of evidence chains” and “the possibility of false accusations” into the spotlight, highlighting the deeper challenge in Chinese society: how to balance the protection of women’s rights with the safeguarding of judicial fairness in handling sexual assault cases.