Naveen Jangid vs State on 9 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1303 / 2016
Naveen Jangid S/o Shri Ramchandra Jangid, Ward No. 18,

Sujangarh, Distt. Churu, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Sarita W/o Santosh Kumar Nai, R/o Aadhipatti Sadhana

Thikana Ke Piche, Ladnu, District Nagour.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP.

Mr. Vippin Makkad.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment

Date of Judgment: 09/08/2017

The instant revision petition has been preferred on behalf of

the petitioner accused Naveen Jangid for assailing the order dated

24.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.26/2016

whereby, charges were framed against him for the offences under

Sections 376(2), 384, 354A, 354C, 341 and 323 IPC.

Facts in brief are that the prosecutrix Smt. ‘S’ submitted an

FIR at the Police Station Sujangarh on 12.09.2015 alleging inter
(2 of 5)
[CRLR-1303/2016]

alia that her husband used to live at Delhi for earning livelihood.

She had fallen ill and got herself operated for removal of her

appendix and uterus at the Ghodawat Hospital where the

petitioner came into contact with her. They exchanged mobile

numbers with each other. The accused often used to call her and

also helped her in providing medicines etc. and also administered

injections to her when she fell ill. During this period, he prepared

an indecent video of the complainant and started blackmailing her

under the threat of showing the video to her husband and

uploading it on the internet. The accused frequently outraged her

modesty and she was also threatened to establish physical

READ  Smt Krishna Kumari Yarlagadda vs State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2014

relations with his friends. Under the threat of making of the video

viral, the accused twice extorted sums of Rs.20,000/- from her.

She complained of these happenings to her husband who

confronted the accused Naveen who, rather than restraining from

his vile acts, assaulted her husband and severely injured him. On

the basis of this report, an FIR No.226/2015 was registered

against the petitioner at the Police Station Sujangarh for the

offences under Sections 384, 354A, 354C, 341 and 323 IPC and

investigation commenced. No allegation of actual forcible sexual

intercourse was made by the prosecutrix either in the FIR or her

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon being

examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix repeated the

allegations levelled in the FIR and stated that the accused used to

indulge in all kinds of acts with her under the threat of uploading

the indecent video clippings. It is manifest that even in this

statement, the prosecutrix did not clearly allege that the accused
(3 of 5)
[CRLR-1303/2016]

had ever subjected her to acutal sexual intercourse. Subsequently,

she submitted an affidavit to the I.O. clarifying that by the phrase

‘everthing’ mentioned by her in the statement recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C., she intended to convey that the accused

established forcible sexual relations with her. On the basis of this

clarification affidavit, the investigating officer, added the offence

under Section 376(2) IPC to the case and proceeded to file a

charge sheet against the accused. The accused contested the

charges before the Sessions Judge who directed framing of

charges against the petitioner as indicated above by order dated

READ  The State Of Maharashtra-vs-Vivek Gangadhar Thakare, on 15 July, 2005

24.08.2016 which is under challenge in the instant revision

petition.

Shri I.R. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, vehemently urged that ex-facie, from the FIR as well as

statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and

164 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 376(2) IPC is not made out

and thus, the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the said

offence. He contended that neither in the detailed report nor in

her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., did

the prosecutrix allege that the accused actually subjected her to

sexual intercourse. He urged that the subsequent clarification

affidavit in which, the prosecutrix alleged that by “everything”

mentioned in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she meant

sexual intercourse, is ex-facie untenable. He thus craved

acceptance of revision and setting aside of the impugned order to

the extent charge under Section 376(2) IPC was framed against

the accused.

(4 of 5)
[CRLR-1303/2016]

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. They urged that the accused

had recorded indecent videos of the prosecutrix who was under

persistent threat of blackmail and thus, she could not clearly

mention in the FIR that the accused subjected her to forcible

sexual intercourse. She mentioned this fact in couched language

in the report and her statements and clarified the allegation by

way of her affidavit which is sufficient to frame charge against the

petitioner. They thus justified the impugned order.

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and have gone through the material

available on record.

READ  Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008

The complainant is a major married woman. The belated FIR

came to be lodged after due deliberation with her husband and

thus, it was expected that the entire narration of events which

actually happened with her whould have been mentioned therein.

Though, it is true that an FIR is not expected to be an

encyclopedia but even while deposing under Sections 161 and 164

Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix limited her allegations against the accused

to the extent of outraging of modesty and nothing beyond that.

Evidently thus, the allegation set out in the clarification affidavit of

the prosecutrix was nothing but an afterthought. It is the firm

opinion of this Court that the prosecutrix knowingly and

deliberately tried to improve her version step by step and has

tried to implicate the accused for graver offence under Section

376(2) without any justification by an affidavit which is nothing
(5 of 5)
[CRLR-1303/2016]

but an attempt to improve her original version. The improved

version which the prosecutrix tried to set up in her affidavit cannot

be accepted ex-facie even for the framing of charge. The so-called

indecent recordings under the threat whereof, the accused

allegedly blackmailed the prosecutrix were not recovered by the

police during investigation.

Consequently, the revision petition deserves to be and is

hereby allowed in part. The impugned order dated 24.08.2016

passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.26/2016 is set

aside to the extent charge was framed against the petitioner for

the offence under Section 376(2) IPC. However, the trial of the

petitioner shall continue as per law for the remaining offences.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

tikam daiya/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *