Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Saroj Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
The State & Anr. - Respondents
CRL. REV. P. 778 of 2016
Decided On : 19-03-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. I.J.S. Mehra, Ms. Tabbassum Firdause, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP, with SI Rajeshwar, Mr. Amit Nag and Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocates.
The requirement of grave suspicion for framing a charge under Section 376/506 IPC.
Headnote:
RAPE - Allegation of Rape and Cheating - Section 376, Section 506 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the allegations of rape and cheating under Section 376 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR, the consent of the prosecutrix, contradictions in her statements, and the lack of medical evidence. The court emphasized the requirement of grave suspicion for framing a charge and concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the discharge of the accused under Sections 376/506 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that the respondent exploited her, made physical relations against her wishes, and cheated her by taking money and gold. The Trial Court noted a delay in lodging the FIR, the acquaintance of the parties, and contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that there was no grave suspicion against the accused for framing a charge under Section 376/506 IPC and discharged the respondent No.2 of the offences.
Issues: Delay in lodging the FIR, consent of the prosecutrix, contradictions in her statements, and the requirement of grave suspicion for framing a charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of grave suspicion for framing a charge under Section 376/506 IPC and the importance of considering the material placed before the Court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court's decision to discharge the respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 376/506 IPC was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 20.09.2016, whereby, the Trial Court has discharged respondent No.2 of the offences under Section 376/506 IPC.
2. Subject FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC, on the complaint of the petitioner made on 13.10.2015 wherein she had alleged that her husband had died in the year 2006, she has a small child and was very upset in connection with her husband’s case when she came in contact with respondent No.2.
3. It is alleged that respondent No.2 taking advantage of her started increasing his closeness with her and against her wishes made physical relationship and when she protested he is alleged to have stated that he was all alone, so would marry her and take care of her and her son. He also promised to purchase a plot in her name.
4. Thereafter, it is alleged that, in the year 2007 a 50 sq.yard plot was purchased and she provided Rs.2 lakhs which she had taken from her father for purchase of the plot. For constructing a house on the said plot, she gave 10 tolas gold and 750 grams of silver. When the house was built they shifted into the house and started living in the house since the year 2008.
5. It is alleged that for several years respondent No.2 continued to make physical relations with her and whenever she would ask for marriage, he would evade the answer. Subsequently, it is alleged that she came to know that he was having relations with several women and when she asked him about it he got angry and started beating her son and threatened to commit suicide.
6. It is alleged that later on respondent No.2 took advance from a third party for sale of the property and the purchaser asked her to vacate the house and when she protested, the advance was returned. Subsequently she came to know that he had purchased the house in his own name. Thereafter he stopped coming to the house and she then came to know that he was already married and was living with his family and one day she went to his house when her family members started fighting with her and called police control room on 100. Thereafter when she went to his office he got angry and started fighting with her on which she made a call to police control room on 28.06.2015. It is alleged that he thereafter threatened to throw her out of the house. It is on these alleged facts that she contended that he had exploited her for several years and cheated her by taking money and gold and purchasing the property in his own name.
7. Trial Court has in the impugned order noticed that there was a delay of 9 years in lodging of the FIR. Trial Court has noticed that as per her complaint in the year 2006 respondent No.2 is alleged to have established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and the relations continued till the year 2015 and at no point she raised any alarm or hue or cry or lodged any report with the police against the alleged sex on the pretext of marriage. It is only when she came to know that the house was in the name of the respondent No.2 and a notice was served upon her to vacate the house she approached the police and lodged a complaint.
8. Trial Court has noticed that the petitioner prosecutrix and the respondent No. 2 were acquainted with each other before the alleged incident and on friendly relationships. Trial Court has noticed that if the prosecutrix was not a consenting party then there was no occasion or reason not to report the incident to the police for the alleged heinous crime/rape committed in the year 2006. Trial Court has opined that the consent to physical relations, if any, was an act of conscious reason as she was a mature lady.
9. In the facts of the case, Trial Court has opined that it was an act of promiscuity on the part of the prosecutrix and not an act induced by misconception of facts. There was also no medical evidence to support the version of the prosecutrix that she was raped.
10. Trial Court has noticed that in her complaint itself the prosecutrix had alleged that a
