Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that an accused should not simply be discharged in a rape case because the prosecutor did not state so in her FIR or during the medical-legal case (MLC).
“This is because, in cases such as rape, where the victim is the only witness in the majority of cases, the victim’s statement should be considered when charges are filed.” A statement made under Section 164 of the CrPC revealing the rape offence is sufficient to frame charges under Section 376 of the IPC, stated the court. Observing that courts must take into account the “aftermath of an incident of sexual violence against any person”.
“There is no doubt about the trauma that a victim has to face, both physically and emotionally, after incidents of this nature.” “Many a time, a person may not be in an emotional or physical state to take an immediate stand against the assailant or to go through further trauma of an investigation by the police or through an intrusive medical examination, and an accused should not merely be discharged under Section 376 because the prosecutor has not stated about the same in her FIR or during MLC.” -Justice Sharma
According to the court, an “overzealous approach” to analysing evidence in detail and concluding the entire case before it begins is sometimes “fatal to the justice and faith of victims in the criminal justice system.”
Highlighting that there may be instances where MLC is unable to disclose the actual incident, the court stated that the trial court should not engage in evidence appreciation and begin assessing it at the stage of charge framing. The court provided an example, saying, “One such example is when it has been alleged that an act of rape has been committed by a finger or by any other instrument or in any manner where restraint marks or other medical evidence could not be adduced.”
When there is a “prima facie case” that an offence has been committed, the trial courts are “bound to frame charges.”
The court made these remarks while hearing a revision petition filed by the Delhi Police Department in response to a trial court’s decision to discharge the accused of a rape charge. The accused were charged with violating sections 323, 354, 354(B), 458, 509, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in 2016 before the trial court discharged them under section 376 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, in March 2016, the defendants unlawfully entered the victim’s home while she was five months pregnant and assaulted her with the goal of violating her modesty. After she filed the complaint and reported the incident to authorities, she was escorted to the police station to file a report.
The woman went to the hospital the following day with stomach pain and genital bleeding, where she was examined. The victim showed up a torn piece of kurta pyjama to the investigation officer during the course of the investigation.
In April 2016, the magistrate recorded the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, in which she stated that one of the defendants had placed a finger in her genitals. The statement led to the addition of IPC Section 376 to the matter at hand. In October 2016, the trial court released the defendant from the Section 376 IPC accusation.
Justice Sharma stated that, at the stage of conviction, the trial court proceeded to collect the evidence and uncover contradictions therein.
The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision to discharge the defendant for the violation of Section 376 of the IPC and also charged them with the crime of rape, in addition to the other charges against them.
Highlighting that three factors were considered by the trial court at the stage of charge formulation, namely the FIR, the MLC, and the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, Justice Sharma stated that the court below made an error in discharging the accused by giving undue weight to the discrepancies in the prosecutor’s statement.
“It is also noted that the prosecutrix only mentioned the offence for the first time in her statement to the learned magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC, in which she stated that one of the accused inserted a finger into her genitals and hit her stomach despite her informing them that she was pregnant. “The learned trial court observed that the MLC does not include any sexual assaults, just bodily assaults,” the judge stated.
Thus, the court stated that a rape charge might have been brought simply on the basis of the statement made under section 164 CrPC, even though such an allegation was not mentioned in the FIR or in the statement made under section 161 CrPC.
While granting the prosecution’s plea, the High Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the state’s plea and would have no bearing on the trial’s merits.
Title: State vs. Mohd. Javid Nasir & ORS
Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005071
Date: November 23rd, 2022
Justice: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma (Delhi H.C.)
Counsel for Petitioner: A.P.P. Manoj Pant
Counsel for respondent: Advocates R.K. Singh and Gagan Gautam
Written by : Lakshman Singh, 3rd Semester B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons. ), Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Lucknow
0 Comments