In the matter of allegations relating to social media pressure and tarnishing of the victim’s image primarily against co-accused IPS Amitabh Thakur, which had led to suicide by the victim, the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench has held that at the stage of consideration of discharge, the trial court must examine whether the material on record gives rise to a strong suspicion that the accused had committed the offence; however, that exercise must be undertaken by dealing with the actual evidence available against the particular accused in the case diary and other material relied upon by the prosecution.
The Court emphasised that where the principal allegations emerging from the material are directed against a co-accused, and the relevant evidence against the revisionist/accused has not been properly examined by the trial court, rejection of discharge is unsustainable and the matter must be remitted for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the trial court was directed to decide the revisionist’s discharge application afresh, expeditiously, in accordance with law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh noted that, as per the prosecution case in the present matter, the immediate allegations relating to social media pressure and tarnishing of the victim’s image were primarily against co-accused Amitabh Thakur. The Bench specifically observed that the revisionist was admittedly in jail at the time of the incident of self-immolation.
The Bench further observed that the allegations relied upon by the prosecution were contained either in the victim’s application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, or in her Facebook live statement made before the incident, and that the trial court had failed to examine all this evidence properly while rejecting discharge.
The Bench held that although the law at the stage of charge/discharge requires strong suspicion that the accused had committed the offence, in the present case the evidence in the case diary against the revisionist had not been dealt with.
Briefly, the revisionist was already an accused in an earlier rape case, on the complaint of the victim in relation to an alleged incident dated March 07, 2018. In that earlier FIR, the victim alleged that the revisionist called her to his flat, committed rape, had CCTV footage of the incident, threatened her, and continued to victimize and intimidate her thereafter. The defence case before the High Court was that the 2019 FIR was politically motivated, that the investigation ignored material pointed out by the revisionist, and that despite requests for proper inquiry/further investigation, the charge-sheet had been filed mechanically.
During the pendency of the trial in the earlier rape case, the victim allegedly made further allegations on social media against IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, claiming that he was spreading false information and implicating her supporters; thereafter, on August 16, 2021, she committed self-immolation near the gate of the Supreme Court at New Delhi after a Facebook live statement.
Following that incident, FIR under Section 309 IPC was lodged at Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi regarding the self-immolation incident. Subsequently, another FIR was lodged at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, based on an inquiry report relating to the self-immolation incident. In that FIR, it was alleged that pressure was being exerted on the victim and her witnesses, criminal cases had been lodged against her and her associates, and she had earlier complained that Amitabh Thakur, allegedly having taken money from the revisionist, was fabricating evidence and instigating her towards suicide by tarnishing her image.
The revisionist argued that the investigation in FIR was conducted mechanically; that though many case diary parchas were prepared, there was no evidence against him for offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 195-A, 218, 306, 504 and 506 IPC; and that even the victim’s complaint did not contain any allegation against him for instigation to commit suicide.
The State opposed the revision on the ground that the victim’s image was being tarnished through social media activity by the co-accused, that this victimization led to instigation to commit suicide, and that there was prima facie sufficient material to frame charge. The State, however, did not dispute that the revisionist was in jail at the time when the deceased committed suicide in New Delhi.
Appearances:
Advocate Kaustubh Singh, for Revisionist
V.K. Shahi, Additional Advocate General and Anurag Verma, A.G.A, for Opposite Party
