SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Tri) 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T. Vaiphei, J.
Smt. Paramita Majumder (Datta) alias Pinki, W/O. Sri Biswanath Datta – Petitioner
Versus
Sri. Biswanath Datta, S/O. Sri Manik Datta and Others – Respondents
CRL.REV.P. NO.80 of 2012 Along with CRL.REV.P. NO.01 of 2013
Decided On : 04-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A. Ghosh, P.P., Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. P. Saha, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the scope of discharge under Section 227, CrPC and the application of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709.

Headnote:

498-A/377 IPC - Discharge of accused under Section 227, CrPC - Interpretation of Section 227, CrPC - Scope of discharge under Section 227, CrPC

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a wife, filed a complaint against her husband and his family members for demanding dowry, ill-treating her, and committing sexual offenses. The trial court discharged the respondent No. 2 and 3 of the offenses punishable under Section 498-A/377 IPC, but framed charges against the respondent No. 1 under Section 498-A/377 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court prematurely discharged the respondent No. 2 and 3 for the offense punishable under Section 498-A IPC, but did not err in discharging them of the offense punishable under Section 377 IPC. The court also held that the trial court did not commit illegality in framing the charge against the respondent No. 1 under Section 498-A/377 IPC.

Issues: The issues involved the discharge of the accused under Section 227, CrPC and the interpretation of the scope of discharge under Section 227, CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, which emphasized that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offense.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition No. 80 of 2012 was partly allowed, and the discharge of the respondent No. 2 and 3 under Section 498-A IPC was set aside. The trial court was directed to frame charges against the respondent No. 2 and 3 under Section 498-A IPC and proceed with the trial against them jointly with the respondent No. 1, who shall also be tried under Section 377 IPC in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Aggrieved by the order dated 7-9-2012 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura in C.R. No. 38 of 2011 discharging the respondent No. 2 and 3 of the offences punishable U/s 498-A/354/377 IPC, the petitioner is filing this revision petition.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 and 3 are the younger brother and father of the respondent No. 1 respectively and that the father of the petitioner gifted many articles as per the demands of the respondents. The respondent No. 1 is serving as Field Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Director, Economics and Statistics, Karbi Anglong district and occasionally returned home by staying 10/12 days. A male child was born to them on 5-1-2006. A few days after the birth of their child, the respondent No. 1 demanded a motor cycle and started to put pressure on her in the former form of physical and mental torture, which was increasing day by day by demanding additionally a plot of land. When her father refused to do so, all the respondents insisted donation of the land to the respondent No. 1 as she had no brother. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 also indulged in sexually inappropriate activity by forcibly putting his male organ into her mouth and discharged his semen and forced her to swallow it. At the instigation of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 assaulted her and also tried to commit rape on her on several occasions. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 on 28-6-2011 entered into her room to fulfill his lustful desire, jumped upon her and attempted to fulfill his lust, but she managed to save herself after she informed him that she would disclose his lustful attempt to other persons whereupon he left her. On 7-7-2011, when the respondent no. 1 returned home, she apprised him of the incident, but he told her that unless his demands were met, she would continue to be tortured; on that night itself, he beat her severely. She then and there informed her father through mobile as to how she was beaten up by her husband, but her ordeals continued as the respondents kept on giving her mental and physical torture. She was, therefore, constrained to file the complaint petition before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, who, after taking the statement of the petitioner U/s 200, CrPC, took cognizance of the offences punishable U/s 498-A/377 IPC and issued process against the three respondents. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses, but no cross-examination was done by the respondents, who had already appeared before the trial court in response to the summons. Ultimately, the learned SDJM passed the impugned order.

3. Both Mr. AC Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel and Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 have been extensively heard. I have also gone through the materials on record, particularly, the statements of PW-1, 2 and 3. The respondent No. 2 and 3, apart from the respondent No. 1, are charged with the offences punishable U/s 498-A/377 IPC. The learned SDJM appears to have been swayed by the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that when the sexual act had taken place in between man and man and woman and woman, such unnatural acts came within the purview of homosexuality thereby making out a prima facie case of Section 377 IPC. In so far as the framing of the charge against the respondent No. 1, as already noticed, the parties are not in issue. In Grace Jayaani v. EP Peter, AIR 1982 Kant 46, the Special Bench of the Karnataka High Court, after quoting from the Halsbury’s Laws of England, American Jurisprudence and Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, held that the term ‘Sodomy’ is non coital, carnal copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex, e.g., per anus or per os and a man may thus indulge in
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top