The High Court's decision to discharge the accused based on delay in lodging the FIR was found to be erroneous and not in line with legal principles. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

J. B. Pardiwala, J.

This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the original first informant (father of the deceased) and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 02.12.2021 in the Criminal Revision Application No. 211 of 2021 by which the High Court allowed the revision application filed by the accused (respondent No. 1 herein) and thereby set aside the order passed by the trial court framing charge against the accused of the offence punishable & discharged him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Sections 5 and 6 resply of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, POCSO Act").

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts of this litigation are quite heart-breaking and at the same time, more disturbing is the utterly incomprehensible impugned judgment of the High Court discharging the accused of the offence of rape essentially on the ground of delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).

3. Since this litigation arises from the First Information Report (FIR) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act, this Court must ensure that the identity of the victim is protected. In such circumstances, the deceased victim shall be referred to as X.

4. The appellant herein is a resident of the Village Bansati, P.S. Rewa, District Rewa. His family members as on date consists of his wife, namely Smt. Rani Tiwari, three sons and one daughter. The deceased X was the eldest child of the first informant. The deceased studied up to standard 9th. On 27.04.2020 in the morning, the wife of the first informant informed that X (deceased) had severe pain in her stomach. The first informant thought that there could be a tumor in the stomach of his daughter. The first informant took his daughter X (deceased) on his motorcycle to the Harsh Hospital situated at Chakghat for the purpose of medical treatment. They reached the hospital at about 10.30 am. X was made to sit on a bench outside the hospital. The first informant went inside the hospital to speak to Dr. K.B. Shukla. It appears that by the time the first informant and Dr. K.B. Shukla could attend to X, she delivered a baby. In such circumstances, the doctor refused to admit X in the hospital. As the first informant relentlessly pleaded before the doctor, X was ultimately admitted in a minor OT of the hospital. It appears that thereafter X requested a lady sweeper of the hospital, namely, Nirmala Saket to allow her to use her mobile so as to speak to one Amit Tiwari (accused), also a resident of the same village. X could not use the mobile as Nirmala was left with no balance. It appears that thereafter X disclosed before her father that she had conceived through Amit Tiwari and would take a room on rent in Chakghat and start living life along with Amit & the new born infant. As X was admitted in the hospital, the first informant had to arrange for finance and in such circumstances, he left for his village to arrange for money. By the time he returned at 3 pm to the hospital, he was informed by the doctor that his daughter X had committed suicide by hanging herself with a duptta on the rod of the OT light affixed to the ceiling. The first informant rushed inside the room and noticed that his daughter X was hanging and the new born infant was laid on a dressing table in the very same room. According to the first informant, his daughter X committed suicide out of shame as she had delivered an illegitimate child conceived through Amit Tiwari (accused).

5. In such circumstances referred to above, the first informant lodged an FIR at the P.S. Chakghat, District Rewa, which came to be registered as the FIR No. 0064/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 306 resply of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 resply of the POCSO Act.

6. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was undertaken by the police.