Case: State Of Maharashtra Vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj

important and material.These three girls levelled allegations against the applicant No. 2 Kripaluji Maharaj after the lapse of considerable time i.e. after months and years and, therefore, the probability as depicted by the defence that it was at the instance of Nityanand, cannot be overruled. It needs mention that no report was lodged by either of the girls at any time. It is also clear from the record that Nityanands statement which was recorded on 11.5.1991 i.e. on the day on which the FIR was lodged by Purushottam Deshapnde. Subsequently only the statements of all the three prosecutrix came to be recorded. Even in the FIR there is no whisper that any time, the applicant No. 2 had committed rape on any of the prosecutrix or on any other disciples.So the evidence does not become reliable merely because it has been corroborated by a number of witnesses of the same brand.In this case, there is unreasonable, inordinate or extraordinary delay in levelling allegations of physical molestation or rape committed, by all the three prosecutrix against a saintly old man of 69 years of age who renounced the world and engrossed in spiritual world. The explanation as could be revealed from the statements of the prosecutrix that the disciples of Kripaluji Maharaj all the while stated that he is an incaranation of God and whatever happened with them, be taken as a `Prasad or blessing of God and so not to disclose to any one, is difficult to digest as the chastity is the jewel of the Indian woman and no woman will consider the sexual intercourse against her will as `Prasad or `Blessing of God.It also does not stand to reason that a saintly man who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India, direct his own disciple and in their presence will commit sexual intercourse with the pracharak of his cult.Considering the overall effect of the evidence collected by the prosecution, there is, according to me, no ring of truth. No prudent man can dare to accept or believe the infirm and improbable evidence of the prosecutrix.All these facts go to show that the girls evidently told lies and developed false story against the applicant No. 2 and his disciples." 12. The above quoted paragraphs from the judgment clearly disclose that the High Court was much influenced by the submission made on behalf of the defence that Kripalu Maharaj is a saintly old man, who has renounced the world, who is engrossed in spiritual activity and who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India and, therefore, he was not likely to indulge in the illegal acts alleged against him. It failed to appreciate that it is not unusual to come across cases where the so-called spiritual heads exploit young girls and women who become their disciples and come under their spell. Moreover, the reasoning of the High Court that it also does not stand to reason that a saintly man who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India would commit sexual intercourse with the pracharak of his cult in presence of his disciples stands vitiated because of the vice of misreading the statements. The three girls have nowhere stated in their statements that R-2 had sexual intercourse with them in presence of other disciples. The High Court gave too much importance to the conduct of the three victims and the delay in disclosing those illegal acts to their parents and the police. What the High Court has failed to appreciate is how a victim of such an offence will behave would depend upon the circumstances in which she is placed. It often happens that such victims do not complain against such illegal acts immediately because of factors like fear or shame or uncertainties about the reactions of their parents or husbands in case of married girls or women and the adverse consequences which, they apprehend, would follow because of disclosure of such acts. What the three girls had stated in their statements was not inherently improbable or unnatural. They have disclosed the reasons why they could not immediately complain about those illegal acts for such a long time. What the High Court has failed to appreciate is that while making a complaint to the police or giving their statements, they were not required to give detailed explanations. As stated earlier, what the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her explanation is prima facie believable or not. It was, therefore, not proper for the High Court to seek independent corroboration at that stage and to quash the charge and discharge the accused in absence thereof. It was also improper to describe the version of Sulakshana as false because no extensive injuries were noticed on her person while she was examined by a doctor on the basis of some observations made in Modis textbook on "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology". We do not think it proper to say anything further as in the view that we are taking, the accused will have to face a trial and whatever observations we make now may cause some prejudice to them at the trial. We would only say that the High Court was wholly wrong in discarding the material placed before the court as false and discharging the accused on that ground. 13. Before us also the learned counsel for the respondents had made a grievance that the charge as framed was not in accordance with Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application, Exhibit 36, was made to the Sessions Court for modification of the charge so as to make it consistent with Section 219. That application was not pressed and the court was invited to dispose of the other applications made by them for quashing the charge and discharging them. As we are inclined to allow this appeal, the Sessions Court will have to now consider afresh whether the charge is required to be altered or amended.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. The law on the subject is now well-settled, as pointed out in Niranjan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijja, JT 1990(3) SC 408 : 1990(4) SCC 76, that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.9. What we find from the judgment of the High Court is that the learned Judge, in order to ascertain the correct legal position, referred to various decisions and quoted extensively from them but did not apply the law correctly.The above quoted paragraphs from the judgment clearly disclose that the High Court was much influenced by the submission made on behalf of the defence that Kripalu Maharaj is a saintly old man, who has renounced the world, who is engrossed in spiritual activity and who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India and, therefore, he was not likely to indulge in the illegal acts alleged against him. It failed to appreciate that it is not unusual to come across cases where the so-called spiritual heads exploit young girls and women who become their disciples and come under their spell. Moreover, the reasoning of the High Court that it also does not stand to reason that a saintly man who has thousands/millions of disciples all over India would commit sexual intercourse with the pracharak of his cult in presence of his disciples stands vitiated because of the vice of misreading the statements. The three girls have nowhere stated in their statements that R-2 had sexual intercourse with them in presence of other disciples. The High Court gave too much importance to the conduct of the three victims and the delay in disclosing those illegal acts to their parents and the police. What the High Court has failed to appreciate is how a victim of such an offence will behave would depend upon the circumstances in which she is placed. It often happens that such victims do not complain against such illegal acts immediately because of factors like fear or shame or uncertainties about the reactions of their parents or husbands in case of married girls or women and the adverse consequences which, they apprehend, would follow because of disclosure of such acts. What the three girls had stated in their statements was not inherently improbable or unnatural. They have disclosed the reasons why they could not immediately complain about those illegal acts for such a long time. What the High Court has failed to appreciate is that while making a complaint to the police or giving their statements, they were not required to give detailed explanations. As stated earlier, what the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her explanation is prima facie believable or not. It was, therefore, not proper for the High Court to seek independent corroboration at that stage and to quash the charge and discharge the accused in absence thereof. It was also improper to describe the version of Sulakshana as false because no extensive injuries were noticed on her person while she was examined by a doctor on the basis of some observations made in Modis textbook on "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology". We do not think it proper to say anything further as in the view that we are taking, the accused will have to face a trial and whatever observations we make now may cause some prejudice to them at the trial. We would only say that the High Court was wholly wrong in discarding the material placed before the court as false and discharging the accused on thatapplication, Exhibit 36, was made to the Sessions Court for modification of the charge so as to make it consistent with Section 219. That application was not pressed and the court was invited to dispose of the other applications made by them for quashing the charge and discharging them. As we are inclined to allow this appeal, the Sessions Court will have to now consider afresh whether the charge is required to be altered or amended.