IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Sanjay Kumar. - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2604 of 2019
Decided On : 05-04-2024
Quash - Sexual Harassment - IPC Section 354-A - The court interpreted Section 354-A of IPC, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for charges of sexual harassment, ultimately quashing proceedings due to lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's statements.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged the charge-sheet and cognizance order for alleged offences under IPC Section 354-A, arguing that the victim's statements were inconsistent and lacked evidence, particularly as forensic analysis found no supporting material.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge-sheet was based on insufficient evidence, primarily CDR details indicating consensual communication, and noted significant inconsistencies in the victim's statements, leading to doubts about the allegations.
Issues: Whether the allegations under IPC Section 354-A (iii) and (iv) were substantiated by sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without corroborative evidence, particularly given the inconsistencies in the victim's statements and the absence of physical evidence, the charges under Section 354-A could not be sustained.
Result: The court quashed the proceedings against the applicant under IPC Section 354-A.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. By the instant C482 application, applicant is challenging the charge-sheet no. 135 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, arising out of FIR being Case Crime No. 08 of 2019 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar) wherein applicant has been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 354-A (iii) and (iv) IPC.
2. The genesis of the case is arising out of the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 08 of 2019, Police Station – Kotwali, Dehradun wherein allegations had been levelled against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 354-A, 506 IPC. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer, however, on completion of the investigation, offences punishable under Section 294, 506 IPC were deleted and charge-sheet has been filed only for the offence punishable under Section 354-A IPC. Subsequently, Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the said charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 354A (iii) and (iv) IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 08 of 2019 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact, no ingredient of Section 354-A (iii) and (iv) IPC are available and as such, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that during investigation, the statement of respondent no. 3 / complainant – victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 08.01.2019 and in her statement, she stated that she had been raped by the applicant three times and video was also made, however, no date when the said offence had taken place for the first time has been given by the victim.
3. Thereafter, complainant - victim was asked to give her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however, complainant - victim was not ready and she said that she is not well and whenever she will be well, she will give her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 19.01.2019, victim appeared before the Investigating Officer for the purposes of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, her statement were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her statement, she stated that first time, she was raped by the applicant on 10.03.2018 and again, she was raped twice by the applicant.
4. Thereafter, the investigating officer collected the CDR details of the applicant and victim and after examining the CDR details, during the course of the investigation it was found that the applicant, on the date of alleged incident of rape i.e. on 10.03.2018, was not present in Dehradun from 09.03.2018 to 11.03.2018. So far as the allegation with regard to the alleged preparation of video is concerned, both the mobile handsets of the applicants were taken into custody by the investigating officer and sent them for forensic examination to CFSL, Chandigarh. It has been found by the CFSL, Chandigarh that there was neither any pornographic video nor any adultress message on the mobile handsets of the applicant. Despite the fact that neither any pornographic video nor any adultress message was found on the mobile handsets of the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer purely for the reason that both the applicant and victim were in regular touch and they used to talk on mobile phone for long hours regularly and have long chats during night.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while submitting the charge-sheet, no evidence was found by the Investigating Officer, which constitutes the offence punishable under Section 376, 294, 506 IPC, however, based on the CDR details of the applicant and respondent no. 3 whereby it was revealed that both the applicant and victim were talking to each other on mobile phone for long hours regularly during night and have long chats, charge-sheet for the offences under Section 354A (iii) and (iv) IPC has been filed.
6.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) SCC(Cri) 426
The court established that charges of sexual harassment require substantial evidence, and inconsistencies in victim statements can undermine the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized that charges must be framed with precision, highlighting the absence of essential elements for IPC Section 354 and the need to consider dissemination under Section 354-C and IT A....
The court affirmed conviction under Sections 448 and 323 of IPC, citing insufficient evidence for rape charge under Section 376, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence.
Section 354A of the IPC is gender-specific and cannot be applied to female accused, necessitating quashing of charges lacking specific allegations.
The judgment establishes that a conviction under Section 354C IPC requires direct evidence of the dissemination of indecent images, and that circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to meet the ....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 354 IPC, concluding that the appellant's actions constituted an outrage of modesty, supported by the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence.
A long-standing consensual relationship does not constitute rape unless there is evidence of coercion or deceit from the outset.
The court emphasized that when a victim alleges rape and states there was no consent, the presumption under Section 114A of the IPC must apply, reinforcing that such matters must be resolved in a ful....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.