1. Alleged sexual assault of a minor leading to pregnancy and suicide — Charges framed under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1806
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Manendra Prasad Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1210 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2022
Important Points
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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
Rape - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - IPC 376, 306, POCSO Act 5, 6
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a minor, was allegedly raped and committed suicide due to public shame. The accused was charged under IPC 376, 306 and POCSO Act 5, 6. The High Court discharged the accused based on delay in lodging the FIR and doubts about the case.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision to discharge the accused based on delay in lodging the FIR was deemed incomprehensible and not in line with legal principles. The trial court's failure to frame charges for abetment to suicide was not challenged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court erred in discharging the accused based on delay in lodging the FIR and doubts about the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's decision was found to be based on wrong premises and a premature assessment of evidence. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial based on the charges framed earlier.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
Siddharth Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Dy AG, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh, Himanshu Nailwal, Ambuj Tiwari, Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Yashwardhan Singh, Sunny Choudhary, Manoj, Advocates. for the Respondent.
Siddharth Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Dy AG, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh, Himanshu Nailwal, Ambuj Tiwari, Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Yashwardhan Singh, Sunny Choudhary, Manoj, Advocates. for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Accused contended the deceased was a major during the relationship and the act was consensual, rendering charges under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act unsustainable. (Para 14 , 15 )
3. High Court erred by discharging the accused based on FIR delay; at the charge stage, the court must only determine if a prima facie case exists. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 )
4. At the stage of framing charges, the court evaluates material only to determine if a prima facie case exists, without weighing the sufficiency or reliability of evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Trial court directed to proceed with the trial based on the original order framing charges. (Para 31 )
6. What is the scope of interference for a High Court in a revision petition against the framing of charges?
The High Court should not interfere with the trial court's order framing charges unless there are strong reasons to avoid abuse of process, as the court only needs to be satisfied that a prima facie case exists. (Para 21 , 22 )
7. What standard of evidence is required at the stage of framing charges in a criminal trial?
The court does not weigh the correctness or sufficiency of evidence but examines if the allegations, taken as a whole, constitute an offence and create a strong suspicion of guilt. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
8. Can an accused be discharged at the charge stage solely due to a delay in filing the FIR?
No, discharging an accused of rape based on delay in the registration of the FIR at the charge stage is considered legally unsustainable and incomprehensible. (Para 19 , 20 )
9. What is the legal meaning of the word presume in the context of framing charges?
Presume means that if the materials on record suggest the commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charges exists, regardless of the probative value of the materials. (Para 27 )
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 pol
