Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Deepak Dua - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. Rev. P. 968/2018 & Crl. M.A. 35640/2018 (Stay)
Decided On : 31-08-2021
RAPE - Indian Penal Code - Sections 376-D/376(2)(n)/376(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 376-D/376(2)(n)/376(1) of the Indian Penal Code based on the complaint of the prosecutrix, who alleged that she was raped by the petitioner and another individual on multiple occasions. The petitioner sought discharge from the case, claiming that the prosecutrix's allegations were false and motivated by a property dispute between the prosecutrix and another individual.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecutrix's allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence and appeared to be an afterthought, as she did not initially mention the alleged rapes in her complaint to the police. The Court also noted discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements and found that the lease deeds for the properties where the alleged rapes occurred were not challenged, undermining the prosecutrix's claims.
Issues: The key issues were the credibility of the prosecutrix's allegations, the timing of her complaint, and the veracity of the lease deeds for the properties where the alleged rapes occurred.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles established in various cases to determine whether a prima facie case against the accused had been made out. It emphasized the need for a strong suspicion based on material evidence and the duty of the Court to ensure that injustice is mitigated by carefully considering the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders framing charges against the petitioner and discharged the petitioner from the case, concluding that the prosecutrix's allegations lacked sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against the orders dated 04.09.2018 and 14.09.2018, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (SFTC)-2, Karkardooma Courts, framing charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 376-D/376(2)(n)/376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC').
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present petition are as under:
a) On the complaint of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 571/2016 was registered on 05.11.2016 at Police Station Ashok Nagar for offences under Sections 376/506/34 IPC. It is stated by the complainant that on 08.02.2012 she joined a gym run by one Krishan Kumar in partnership with the petitioner herein. It is stated that the prosecutrix did not have good relations with her husband and they lived separately. It is stated that one day when the prosecutrix was in the gym, her husband came there and started abusing her. It is stated that taking advantage of the fact that she does not have good relations with her husband, accused Krishan Kumar started getting close to the prosecutrix. It is stated that Krishan Kumar told the prosecutrix that since her weight is not reducing, it would be better for her to go to 148 Prayatan Vihar where a special machine had been installed to reduce her weight. It is stated that in November 2013, Krishan Kumar took the prosecutrix to 148 Prayatan Vihar. It is stated that when she reached 148 Prayatan Vihar, she saw that the petitioner herein was already present there. It is stated that when she asked Krishan Kumar as to what the petitioner herein is doing there, Krishan Kumar told the prosecutrix that the petitioner is his partner and he operates the said machine. It is stated that when the prosecutrix went into the room, Krishan Kumar put a knife on her and asked her to do what she was being told to do. It is stated that the petitioner herein and Krishan Kumar raped her and took obscene photographs and made videos of her. It is stated that after committing rape, Krishan Kumar showed the obscene photographs and videos to the prosecutrix and threatened her that if she told anyone about the incident her video and photographs would be uploaded on Youtube. It is stated that Krishan Kumar repeatedly blackmailed the prosecutrix. It is stated that in March 2014, Krishan Kumar took the prosecutrix to flat No.958 Jai Ambey Apartment where the petitioner herein was present and was consuming alcohol. It is stated that in the flat the prosecutrix was blackmailed by Krishan Kumar and the petitioner herein by showing her obscene photographs and videos. It is stated that after blackmailing the prosecutrix both Krishan Kumar as well as the petitioner committed rape on her. It is stated that when the prosecutrix asked Krishan Kumar as to why he was doing this to her, she was told that the petitioner and his wife (Vandana Dua) were his partners, and if she kept the petitioner herein happy, he would promote him and give him money as well. It is stated that Krishan Kumar promised to marry the prosecutrix. It is stated that on the pretext of marriage, Krishan Kumar established physical relations with her on several occasions. It is stated that Krishan Kumar kept on threatening the prosecutrix by showing her photographs and videos. It is stated that on 08.04.2016, Krishan Kumar made physical relations with the prosecutrix and threatened her with dire consequences. It is stated that on the basis of this complainant FIR No. 571/2016 was registered on 05.11.2016 at Police Station Ashok Nagar for offences under Sections 376/506/34 IPC.
b) On 09.11.2016, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein she alleged that the petitioner had also established unnatural sexual relations with her on the day she visited flat No.958 Jai Ambey Apartments.
c) The petitioner approached the Sessions Court by moving an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of an
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a strong suspicion based on material evidence to proceed with framing charges in criminal cases, and the duty of the Court to c....
Point of Law : Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Charge can be quashed if evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove guilt of accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-....
Point of Law : Gang Rape - Discharge - If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion a....
The main legal point established is the requirement of grave suspicion to frame charges, the significance of tower locations and call detail records in establishing presence, and the importance of as....
The court emphasized that a mere statement by the prosecutrix, though crucial, must inspire confidence, particularly when significant delays exist in reporting alleged offenses.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court should exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out and should not conduct a roving e....
The court established that consensual relationships, even if based on promises of marriage, do not amount to rape unless there is clear evidence of deception or coercion, and the standard for proceed....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
