JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sudhansu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the victim under proviso to Section 372 of CrPC, challenging the judgment and order dated 13.01.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Dehradun, in Session Trial No. 96 of 2013, whereby the accused/respondent no. 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 and 417 IPC.

2. Leave granted.

3. The victim/appellant before this Court lodged a first information report on 15.12.2012 at 03:30 P.M. at P.S. Kotwali City, Dehradun alleging rape at the hands of the accused who is opposite party no. 2 before this court. In the FIR, it was stated that the applicant is a widow having a 11 year old boy child, and she is presently engaged in the share market business. Through social media she came in touch with the accused, who at the relevant time was residing in Dubai. In May, 2011, the accused came from Dubai to Dehradun and then the two met on more than one occasion. The accused expressed his desire to work in the share market business, as he was doing the same work in Dubai. For this, however, he sought the help of the victim, who was doing the same work in Dehradun. In December, 2011, the accused finally came to India to settle down in Dehradun, and opened an account in the office of the victim/appellant, and the two started working together. Since they were working together, they came close to each other and the accused very soon thereafter proposed marriage, which was accepted by her. Then the accused took her to “Tapkeshwar" [Shiv Temple at Dehradun] temple, where he applied “Sindoor" [Vermilion] on her forehead, apparently showing his commitment for the marriage. He then disclosed that as his parents are conservative in their outlook and it will take some time to bring them on the same page, but assured the prosecutrix that he would do that very soon. The accused also disclosed that he was earlier married but soon. The accused also disclosed that he was earlier married but the marriage is now dissolved, through a divorce decree by the court. He explained that just like his earlier marriage which too was an inter-caste marriage, his parents had agreed, he sees no reason why they will not agree again. The accused further said that they will stay together at “Mohit Vihar, Dehradun" after marriage. The two then stayed in a hotel near “Tapkeshwar" temple", where they had physical relations for the first time. Thereafter they went to several other places together where they stayed just as husband and wife. For all practical purposes, the accused treated her as his wife and they continued to have physical relationship on these occasions. The victim further states in the FIR that during this period, all the travelling and hotel expenses were borne by her and by this time she had spent more than Rupees Two Lakhs on the accused. After a few days, when she confronted the accused as to why he is not marrying her, she was reassured by him that it will happen sooner than she thinks and she need not worry on this account. He reminded her that now her son too calls him “Papa". Later the accused stayed in her house just like her “husband", for several days. After a few days, when she again reminded him of marriage, the accused became angry and said that what he did at “Tapkeshwar" temple was a “drama", done with the intention of having a physical relationship with her. When she threatened to take a police action against him, the accused warned her that he wields great influence and knows police officials, and in case she goes to the police and lodges an FIR against him, nothing would happen. In fact to the contrary, the accused lodged a false complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun against her, of which she had knowledge only on 01.09.2012.

4. After institution of the FIR, the police started its investigation and ultimately filed its chargesheet against the accused/respondent no. 2 under Sections 323, 504, 506