The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the offences to form the same transaction for joint trial, and the importance of territorial jurisdiction in prosecuting offences.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by “X” (assumed name), the victim, to challenge the legality and propriety of an order dated 03.07.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were discharged of the offences under Sections 376(2)/109/34 IPC. The revision petition is contested by the respondents.

2. On “X’s complaint lodged on 24.04.2013 at Police Station Connaught Place, FIR No. 61/13 under Section 376(2)/109/34 IPC was registered. In her complaint “X” aged 27/28 years levelled serious allegations of sexual abuse since her childhood by her uncles Shashi Kumar Thakur, Mukul Thakur (in Short : R-3). She implicated Meera Thakur (in Short : R-2), her real Mausi, for abetting the crime. It was further alleged that during her stay in Delhi in October, 2003, Shashi Thakur used to make frequent visits and committed rape upon her at Western Court (Janpath) and Khirki Extension (Malviya Nagar). R-3 used to criminally intimidate her on phone to insist her to come to Mujaffarpur (Bihar) to satisfy his sexual urge. R-2 was aware of her sexual abuse. She used to force her to sleep with her husband Shashi Thakur in the same room pretending his fatherly affection towards her.

3. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded during investigation. After collecting relevant materials and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed against all of them. It is relevant to note that Shashi Thakur and R-3 were arrested during investigation. The Investigating agency, however, did not arrest R-2.

4. After taking cognizance by an order dated 22.02.2014, under Section 376(f)/109 read with Section 34 IPC against all the accused, the case was committed to Sessions Court. After hearing arguments, R-2 and R-3 were discharged by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Serious allegations of sexual abuse against R-2 were over-looked. It was specifically alleged that she had abetted and provoked the commission of crime by her husband. She used to force “X” to sleep in her husband’s room. She was named in the FIR and specific role in the crime was assigned to her. “X” had genuine reasons to believe that R-2, her “mausi” had abetted, aided and facilitated commission of rape and sexual harassment at the hands of her husband. She was sexually abused by the family members for a period of almost fifteen years and it is not believable that R-2 would be ignorant of all this. Trial Court took erroneous view that cognizance against R-2 was not permissible as her name did not figure in the charge-sheet.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial Court committed grave error to discharge R-3 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Trial Court misread the complaint to form an opinion that instances of sexual abuse and rape over a period of 15 years were isolated incidents and had no bearing on each other. Emphasizing that offences committed by the accused persons were part of the “same transaction” learned counsel would urge that there was no impediment to try all of them jointly at Delhi. It is evident from the confessions in the CD that R-3 and Shashi Thakur were perpetrator of the crime and had common intention to sexually exploit “X” a minor, that time. It was further contended that the petitioner can’t be subjected to harassment to make similar statements at various judicial forums for the incidents in question. Reliance has been placed on Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal AIR 1961 SC 1589; Rohit Chauhan v. State Bail Appl. No. 311/2013; Nirmal Vaid v. State Bail Appl. No. 1760/2012; Jagdish Nautiyal v. State Bail Appln.1317/2012; Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh 2010 (8) SCC 775; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana 2013 (7) SCC 675; Bhagirath Sinh v. State of Gujarat 1984 (1) SCC 284; Jagannivasan v. State of Kerala