INTHECOURTOFPRAVEENKUMAR,ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE(SFTC),DWARKACOURTS,NEWDELHI. SCNo.440344/16 Statevs.[ENTITY] FIRNo.978/2015 U/[CASE NUMBER] [ACT] 10.08.2016 ORDERONCHARGE: 1.
Thecaseoftheprosecution,inbrief,isthataccusedandthe prosecutrix'X'(realnamewithheldinordertoconcealheridentity)were studentsinthesamecoachinginstituteintheyear2006.Theybecame friends.Itisallegedthataccused, onthefalseassurance of marriage, repeatedlyestablishedphysicalrelationswithprosecutrixsince2008but refusedtomarryheron4.12.2013.Asperprosecutrix'sowncase,they remainedinsexualrelationsforaboutfiveyears.Itisallegedthatforthe firsttimeinApril2008accusedforciblyestablishedphysicalrelations withprosecutrixafterfillingsindoorinhermaang.
2. On the aforesaid complaint dated 17.6.2015 of the prosecutrix,thepresentFIRwasregisteredon8.7.2015forcommission ofoffencespunishableu/ss420/376IPC.
[ENTITY]) Page1
3. Duringinvestigationprosecutrixwasmedicallyexaminedat DDUHospital,HariNagar,NewDelhion18.6.2015andon16.7.2015. Sherefusedtoundergointernalexaminationwhenshewasexaminedat DDUHospitalon18.6.2015.Herstatementu/s164Cr[ACT]wasrecorded byLd.MM,DwarkaCourts,NewDelhion10.7.2015.Thestatementsof witnessesconversantwiththefactswererecorded.Aftercompletionof investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused for commissionofoffencesunderSection376/420/506IPC.
4. IhaveheardMs.[ENTITY]Ld.APPfortheStateand Sh[ENTITY],Ld.Counselfortheaccused.
5. Ld.Counselfortheaccusedhascontendedthataccusedhas beenfalselyimplicatedinthiscase.Accordingtohim,[ENTITY] has consented to sexual intercourse with a person who held out false promise to marry her, it would not amount to consenting under any misconceptionoffactu/s90IPCand,assuch,nooffenceofrapecanbe saidtohavebeencommitted.Insupportofhiscontentions,hehasrelied uponjudgments- [ENTITY].Law Journal1535;HemantChaubev.StateofM.P.,Cr.No.845/2014,decided on11.12.2014byMadhyaPradeshHighCourt;MeerValiMohammadv. StateofBihar,1991(1)BLJR247; [ENTITY].State,Appeal(Crl.)No. 336/1996,decidedbyApexCourton19.2.2003andDilipSinghv.State [ENTITY]) Page2 ofBihar, 2005ACR22.Accordingtohim,no primafacie caseforthe allegedoffencesismadeoutagainsttheaccusedandheisliabletobe discharged.
6. [ENTITY],Ld.APPfortheStatehascontendedthat there is sufficient material on record for framing charges against the accused.
7. Ihavegonethroughthecasefile.TheFIRincriminalcaseis an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. It is well settled proposition of law that a mere delay itself cannot be a ground to disbelievetheentirecaseoftheprosecution.Theeffectofdelayistobe understoodinthelightoftheplausibilityoftheexplanationforthcoming andmustdependforconsiderationonallthefactsandcircumstancesofa givencase.Thoughnotreferredtoorreliedupon,[PRECEDENT] incriminaltrialoneofthecardinalprinciplesfortheCourtistolookfor plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimesaffordsopportunitytothecomplainanttomakedeliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications.
8. ThedelayofoneortwodaysinlodgingtheFIRmaybe [ENTITY]) Page3 bonafide, reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of a givencase.However,inthepresentcasethereisdelayofaboutseven yearsfromthedateoffirstallegedincidentinlodgingtheFIR.
9. In her complaint on which present FIR was lodged it is allegedthataccusedfilledthemaangoftheprosecutrixwiththesindoor inApril2008andmadephysicalrelationsagainstherwishesforcibly. The filling of maang with sindoor ipso facto does not create any relationshipakintopromisetomarry.Thoughnotreferredtoorrelied upon,fortakingthisviewIamsupportedwiththejudgment [ENTITY].State,[CASE NUMBER] 29.5.2015. In the FIR itself the prosecutrix has not divulged with certainty and clarity if physical relations with the accused were consensualonhispromisetomarryoritwereagainstherwishesforcibly fortheallegedincidentsasmentionedinthecomplaintoftheprosecutrix. Thisrelationshipcontinuedforsufficientdurationandatnostage,she raisedalarm/hueandcryorlodgedreportwiththepoliceagainstalleged forciblesex.EvenaftertheinitialincidentinApril2008shecontinuedto havesexualrelationswithhimonseveraloccasionswithoutdemurandat nostageprosecutrixlodgedreportabouthisconductandbehaviour.Itis mentionedbytheprosecutrixherselfthatinSeptember2011theyboth got the job in Hydrabad and the company provided them flat in an [ENTITY]) Page4 apartmentandtherealsoaccusedmadephysicalrelationswithheronthe pretextofmarriage.Itwasonlyon4.12.2013whentheaccusedrefused tomarrytheprosecutrix,sheapproachedthepoliceandthattooaftera lapse of about one and a half year of said refusal and lodged the complaintwiththepoliceon17.6.2015.Thus,thesaidcomplaintwas madeafteraconsiderabledelay.
10. Theaccusedandtheprosecutrixwereacquaintedwitheach other.Itisalsonotclearfromtherecordastowhyprosecutrixconcealed thefactumoffillingof sindoor bytheaccusedinher maang fromhis parents/relativesanddidnotmakeitpublic.Wherewasthecompulsion for her to establish physical relations first without ensuring that the accusedwaswillingtoperformmarriagewithher?Shewasthemature enoughtofullyunderstandastowhatwashappeningbetweenthetwo.In thefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,itwasanactofpromiscuityon thepartoftheprosecutrixandnotanactinducedbymisconceptionof fact.Insimilarcircumstances,injudgment- [ENTITY] (supra),it hasheldasunder:
"There is nothing in her evidence to demonstrate that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the act whichsheconsentedto.Herconsentforphysicalrelations(ifany)was anactofconsciousreason.Ifafullygrownupladyconsentstotheact ofsexualintercourseonapromisetomarryandcontinuestoindulgein suchactivityforlong,itisanactofpromiscuityonherpartandnotan actinducedbymisconceptionoffact."
[ENTITY]) Page5
11. Prosecutrix was medically examined firstly on 18.6.2015 andsherefusedtoundergointernalexaminationatthattime.However, shewasagainmedicallyexaminedon16.7.2015atDDUHospital,New Delhi.DoctorhaswrittenontheMLCthatshedidnotfindanyexternal injury mark on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of the examination.Thereisnomedicalevidencetosupporttheversionofthe prosecutrixthatshewasrapedasshewastakentothehospitalafterabout oneandhalfyearofthelastallegedincident.Accusedwasalsomedically examinedbydoctoron22.7.2015atDDUHospital,NewDelhiwhich wasasheerformality.
12. It is the settled law that order framing the charges does substantially affect the persons and the Court must not automatically framethechargemerelybecausetheprosecutionauthorities,byrelying onthedocumentsreferredtoinSection173Cr[ACT],consideritproperto institutethecase.
13. Thoughnotreferredtoorreliedupon,ithasbeenobserved byMadhyaPradeshHighCourtinjudgment-[ENTITY].RNo.607/2013decidedon3.9.2013asunder:
"42.Theprosecution,havingregardtotherightofanaccusedto haveafairinvestigation,fairinquiryandfairtrialasadumbrated underArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndia,cannotatanystage be deprived of taking advantage of the materials which the [ENTITY]) Page6 prosecutionitselfhaveplacedonrecord.Ifuponperusalofthe entirematerialsonrecord,thecourtarrivesatanopinionthattwo viewsarepossible,chargescanbeframed,butifonlyoneandone viewispossibletobetakenfavouringtheaccused,thecourtshall notputtheaccusedtoharassmentbyaskinghimtofaceatrial. Pleasesee:[PRECEDENT] Inthecaseathand,iftheCourtallowedtoaskingapplicantface thetrialonabovediscussedevidence,definitelyitwillamountto puttheapplicantforharassment."
14. In [ENTITY] (supra), it has been held that if a grownupgirlhasconsentedtosexualintercoursewithapersonwhoheld outfalsepromisetomarryheritwouldnotamounttoconsentingunder anymisconceptionoffactunderSection90IPCandsexualintercourseby themanunderthesecircumstancewouldnotbeanoffenceofrapeas definedinSection375IPC.
15. Afterexaminingthedocumentaryaswellasoralevidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, before it is challenged by cross examinationorrebuttedbydefenceevidence,ifany,isnotshowingthat accused committed the alleged offences for which they are being prosecutedbecauseoffollowingreasons:
(a) Nocomplaintwaslodgedbytheprosecutrixtill17.6.2015though shewasallegedlyrapedbytheaccusedsince2008.Thereisnovalid justificationfordelayinlodgingtheFIR.
[ENTITY]) Page7 (b) Theevidentiaryvalueofthemedicalevidenceiszero.
(c) The prosecutrix has not divulged with certainty and clarity if physicalrelationswiththeaccusedwereconsensualonhispromiseto marryoritwereagainstherwishesforcibly.Assumingforthesakeof argument that her consent was obtained on pretext of marriage, the consentcannotbesaidtoresultfrommisconceptionoffactinthefacts andcircumstancesofthiscase.
16. Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,after siftingandweighingtheevidenceforthelimitedpurposeoffindingout whetherornotaprimafaciecaseismadeoutagainsttheaccused,Iamof theopinionthatthematerialsplacedbeforetheCourtdonotdisclosethe gravesuspicionagainsttheaccusedforframingachargeagainsthimfor committingoffencespunishableunderSections376IPC.Accordingly, accusedinthepresentcaseisdischargedfortheoffenceu/s376IPConly AllotheroffencesaretriablebytheCourtofLd.MM.Accusedisdirected toappearbeforetheCourtofconcernedLd.MM,DwarkaCourts,New Delhion12.8.2016whoshallproceedfurtherinthematterinaccordance withlaw.
Announcedtodayin (PRAVEENKUMAR) opencourton10.8.2016.Addl.SessionsJudge(SFTC) DwarkaCourts,NewDelhi.
[ENTITY]) Page8