The Delhi High Court set aside the discharge order of the trial court in a case of alleged rape and criminal intimidation where the prosecutrix accused the respondent of inducing sexual relations under the false promise of marriage and subsequently threatening her when she sought to press her claim.
The State filed a revision petition against the order dated 5 December 2016 of the Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), Dwarka, which had discharged the accused. The charges stemmed from allegations under Sections 376 (rape), 328 (causing hurt by poison, etc.) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix and the accused became acquainted via Facebook in August 2013, met several times, and after the fourth meeting, the accused allegedly proposed marriage. In October 2013, she was invited to his house but, finding his parents absent, was allegedly offered a cold drink that rendered her unconscious; she later realized she had been raped. The prosecutrix further claimed that the accused made obscene videos to blackmail her, continued a sexual relationship over years under repeated false assurances of marriage, and ultimately refused to marry her, citing family opposition due to caste difference. She additionally contended the accused issued threats of dire consequences to her and her family if she pursued any complaint.
The trial court had discharged the accused, reasoning that there had been considerable and unexplained delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical or physical evidence, non-recovery of supposed videos, inconsistencies in statements, and absence of immediate reporting or alarm after the alleged incidents.
The State argued that the Sessions Court erred by conducting a “mini-trial” at the charge stage and by failing to appreciate the consistent case of sexual assault and continuous inducement by false promise of marriage.
The Bench comprising Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that while there was no evidence supporting the administration of a stupefying substance (thereby affirming discharge under Section 328 IPC), the materials on record, particularly statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the contents of the FIR, prima facie disclosed that the prosecutrix engaged in sexual relations under an illusory promise of marriage, which the accused knew was untenable from the start due to purported caste barriers.
The Court observed that where the promise to marry is made with no intention to perform it, and is used merely to obtain sexual favours, offence under Section 376 IPC is attracted. The Court added that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by weighing evidence at the charge-framing stage instead of determining if there was a strong suspicion meriting trial.
Regarding Section 506 IPC, the High Court noted that the allegations of specific threats to the prosecutrix and her family, including threats of bodily harm and intimidation if she insisted on marriage, were sufficient at this stage to direct framing of charges.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the discharge order as regards Sections 376 and 506 IPC and directed the trial court to frame charges and proceed with the trial. The petition was disposed of with the caveat that all observations were limited to the charge-framing context and would not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Relied on:
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohd. Maqbool Magrey (2022) 12 SCC 657
Appearances:
For the Prosecution (State): Ms. Richa Dhawan, Advocate alongwith IO, P.S. Bindapur.
For the Defendant: Mr. Sobhik Tanwar, Advocate.
