Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
STATE - Petitioner
Versus
VARUN VERMA - Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 557 OF 2017
Decided On : 09-10-2017
For the Petitioner: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, SI Manju, PS Janak Puri.
For the Respondent:Ms.Yashima Sharma, Advocate.
The legal point established is that at the stage of charge, the Court should focus on whether a prima facie case for framing charges is made out, without speculating on the truth or falsity of allegations.
Headnote:
RAPE - Discharge of Accused - IPC 376/328/323/506 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of IPC Sections 376 (rape), 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) in relation to the accused's discharge. The court highlighted the importance of consent and misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC, the evidentiary value of medical evidence, and the effect of delay in lodging the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged rape and coercion by the accused, who promised to marry her. The accused was discharged by the Trial Court based on delay in lodging the FIR, withdrawal of complaint, and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the Trial Court's approach erroneous and set aside the discharge order, directing the accused to face trial for the prima facie offences.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the discharge based on delay in lodging the FIR, withdrawal of complaint, and the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that at the stage of charge, the focus should be on whether a prima facie case for framing charges is made out, not on determining guilt. The legal requirement and settled principles do not permit discharge based on speculation of the truth or falsity of allegations at the preliminary stage.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the accused was directed to face trial for the prima facie offences.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th March, 2017 whereby respondent/accused person has been discharged in case FIR No.1622/2015 under Section 376/328/323/506 IPC, PS Janak Puri, the State has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to set aside the order on discharge.
2. Before the learned Trial Court, the respondent/accused sought his discharge on the grounds which are recorded in para 5 of the impugned order as under:-
‘5. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. She withdrew her complaint on 6.12.2015 and also refused to undergo her internal medical examination when she was taken to hospital on 6.12.2015. According to him, if a grown up girl has consented to sexual intercourse with a person who held out false promise to marry her, it would not amount to consenting under any misconception of fact u/s 90 IPC and, as such, no offence of rape can be said to have been committed. According to him, no prima facie case for the alleged offences is made out against the accused and he is liable to be discharged.’
3. Vide impugned order dated 20th March, 2017, the learned Addl Sessions Judge has discharged the accused/respondent for the following reasons:
‘16. After examining the documentary as well as oral evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, before it is challenged by cross- examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, is not showing that accused committed the alleged offences for which they are being prosecuted because of following reasons:
(a) No complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix till December 2015 though she was allegedly raped by the accused since June 2012. There is no valid justification for delay in lodging the FIR.
(b) The evidentiary value of the medical evidence is zero.
(c) The prosecutrix withdrew her complaint on 6.12.2015 specifically mentioning that allegations of rape were made by her on some misunderstanding. Assuming for the sake of argument that her consent was obtained on pretext of marriage, the consent cannot be said to result from misconception of fact in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(d) In view of the judgment - Sanjay Singh (supra) ingredients of Section 328 IPC are not attracted to the present case.
(e) No obscene photographs/video were recovered during investigation.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, after sifting and weighing the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, I am of the opinion that the materials placed before the Court do not disclose the grave suspicion against the accused for framing a charge against him for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/328/323/506 IPC. Accordingly, accused in the present case is discharged for the offences punishable u/ss. 376/328/323/506 IPC. His personal bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. In terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months for his appearance before the High Court of Delhi in the event the prosecution wishes to challenge the present order by filing the appropriate petition in the High Court. Ahlmad is directed to page and bookmark the file so as to enable the digitisation of the entire record. File be consigned to Record Room.’
4. I have heard learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the record.
5. FIR No.1622/2015 under Section 376/328/323/506 IPC, PS Janak Puri has been registered on the basis of complaint made by the prosecutrix ‘P’ (name withheld to conceal her identity) wherein she has stated about the rape being committed on her in June, 2012 when the respondent/accused called her to his house on the pretext that his mother was calling her. When she visit
