* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 3rd November, 2017
+ CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 CRL.M.A. 14915/20178 13394/2017
LENIN RAGHUVANSHI … Petitioner
Through: Mr.Satish Tamta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Vikram Aditya Bhaskar,
Mr.Dhruv Tamta, Mr. Abhishek
Vikram and Mr.Shariq Iqbal,
Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI … Respondent
Through: Mr.Izhar Ahmad APP for State.
With SI Harpal Singh, P.S Pahar Ganj.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
JUDGMENT
I.S. MEHTA, J.
1. Instant revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been
preferred by petitioner for setting aside the impugned order on
charge dated 06.06.2017 and subsequent charge so framed vide
order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional
Session Judge/SFTC-2 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 1 of 8
case No. 51/2017 titled “State vs. Lenin Raghuvanshi” arising
out of FIR No. 226/2015 registered under Sections 328/376 IPC
at police station Pahar Ganj.
2. Brief facts as per the written complaint of the prosecutrix
are that the petitioner is the Executive Director of the People’s
Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) (herein after
referred to as Organisation) situated at SA 4/2A, Daulatpur,
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecutrix has a strong desire to
help and work for social work and to achieve social justice, that
is the reason while she was living and working in Pune as a film
curator, where she found out about the Organisation. On April,
2012 she visited the said Organisation where she met with their
staff member, where she was told about all their work is related
to social work and their work was backed up with books,
articles, conferences, award they received nationally and
abroad. The prosecutrix became true believer in social work the
Organisation engaged in. On May, 2013 when the prosecutrix
was in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand doing yoga, she decided to visit
the said Organisation to continue to support their noble work
instead of going to Mumbai as originally planned. The
petitioner reminded her that she had to go to Delhi first in order
to go to Varanasi and he facilitated the process. The said
conversation was documented via Gmail chat, then the
petitioner told her to stay at same hotel where he would be
staying and booked the room for them. On this the prosecutrix
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 2 of 8
insisted to the petitioner that he must be accompanied by his
wife or someone from his staff.
3. On the intervening night of May, 13/14, 2013 the
petitioner knocked the door of the prosecutrix’s room and said
that he had got food and cake to celebrate her birthday in his
room. At this, the prosecutrix went to the room of the petitioner
and had a bite of cake, the petitioner offered her alcoholic drink
and upon consumption of the said alcoholic drink everything
become blur and somehow the prosecutrix fell asleep in the
petitioner’s room. When the prosecutrix woke up in the
morning, she found that she was naked and noticed that the
petitioner had bit her breast, and feeling violated she left the
room of the petitioner.
4. On 08.04.2015 the prosecutrix lodged a complaint at
police station Phar Ganj, which was registered as FIR No.
226/2015 under Sections 328/376 IPC.
5. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.10.2016 the learned
ACMM-01, (Central) took cognizance for the offence
punishable under Sections 328/376 IPC and issued summons to
the accused. Since the offences under sections 328/376 IPC are
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions therefore, the
learned ACMM-01, (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide
order dated 14.12.2016 committed the case to the Court of
learned District Sessions Judge, (Hq.), Delhi.
6. Consequently, the learned Additional District Judge on
the basis of complaint forming basis of the FIR, history
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 3 of 8
mentioned in the MLC of the prosecutrix and the statements of
the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164
Cr.P.C. vide order dated 06.06.2017 charged the petitioner
under Sections 328/376 IPC. Subsequently, the learned ASJ
vide order dated 10.07.2017 framed charge against the
petitioner for the offence committed under Sections 328/376
IPC.
7. Aggrieved from the aforesaid orders on charge dated
06.06.2017 and framing of charge dated 10.07.2017 the
petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this
Court to set aside the aforesaid orders in case No. 51/2017.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the FIR was filed after a delay of more than 2
years, and the learned Sessions Court while passing order on
charge has clearly misconstrued this by stating that “in a
traditional bound society prevalent in India ,more particularly,
rural area, it be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case
merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the
FIR” on the basis of said opinion it is conveyed as if the
prosecutrix belongs from a rural area and bounded by societal
pressure which resulted in delay of lodging of FIR. Whereas
the fact is this that the prosecutrix is not a citizen of India but
resident of Los Angles, U.S.A and mature independent women
aged around 34 years at the time of the incident and highly
qualified person who holds a Master of Education degree from
Harvard University and High Honour Graduate from UC
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 4 of 8
Berkeley University, which vitiates the claim of the prosecution
that she was bound by social pressure.
9. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that in
order to establish the claim of the prosecutrix the prosecution
would rely on the MLC report, which establishes the occurrence
of the incident. In the present case same cannot be ascertained
as the prosecutrix had clearly refused to go through any medical
examination which further gives benefit of doubt to the
petitioner. It is imperative to note that there was no CFSL report
filed as there was no recovery of any food stuff or drink to
establish the claim of the prosecutrix.
10. The absence of the CFSL report reflects clear fabrication
on the part of the prosecution. Moreover, the refusal of the
prosecutrix to go through medical examination reflects a huge
lacuna in the present case.
11. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that
there is no sufficient evidence qua against the present petitioner
under section 328/376 IPC. He has further stated that in the
present petition there is no medical evidence of the present
prosecutrix qua against the present petitioner. Further, there is
delay in submitting the complaint and only allegation qua
against the present petitioner is made out after a gap of 2 years.
The present prosecutrix is an American citizen and during the
relevant period she was very much present in India and further
submitted that the present petition qua against the petitioner is
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 5 of 8
without sufficient evidences and is not a good law but is misuse
of judicial proceedings.
12. The learned senior counsel has submitted that as per the
evidence and the statement collected by the police it only shows
that after staying for more than 2 hours, the prosecutrix has left
the place after she checked in at 10 pm which dose not
corroborate with the documentary evidence as filed by the
prosecution. Therefore, the charge framed by the lower court is
not good law and submitted that impugned order dated
06.06.2017 be set aside.
13. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied on the following judgments:-
i. Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi);
(2012) 8 SCC 21.
ii. Tameezuddin Alias Tammu vs. State (NCT of Delhi);
(2009) 15 SCC 566.
iii. Santosh Kumar vs. State; 2008 (4) JCC 2919.
14. On the contrary the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State has submitted that there are sufficient evidences
available against the petitioner therefore, the present petition be
dismissed.
15. Instant revision petition is filed by the petitioner to set
aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2017 on the ground that
there is no prima facie evidence qua against the petitioner.
16. On perusal of the material placed on record, it appears
that the prosecutrix made statement to the police under Sections
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 6 of 8
161 Cr.P.C. on 09.04.2015 and supplementary statement on
15.10.2015. She has further made statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. to the learned Magistrate on 09.04.2015 which is
supported with the complainant’s evidence.
17. It is further in the statement of the victim/prosecutrix that
before she was subjected to the sexual assault on her person, she
was offered/given alcohol laced with some intoxicant substance
because of which she lost consciousness. The incident took
place on the intervening night of May, 13/14, 2013. The
victim/prosecutrix was examined on 08.04.2015. The MLC of
the victim/prosecutrix coupled with the statement of the
victim/prosecutrix shows that there is a prima facie case against
the petitioner.
18. In the present case there is statement of the
victim/prosecutrix under Sections 161 164 Cr.P.C. qua the
petitioner, and appreciation of the evidence would be seen
during the trial. Since the statement of the victim is coming
against the petitioner at this stage. The delay of lodging the FIR
which is registered on the basis of the said statement could be
seen in the light of other factors in the instant case which will be
determined during the trial only. Therefore, at this stage there is
a sufficient prima facie case for trial is made out against the
petitioner and it is not proper to interfere with the Lower Court’s
order at this stage. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Hem Chand vs. State of Jharkhand; AIR 2008
SC 1903 wherein the Court has observed as under:-
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 7 of 8
“The Court at the stage of framing charge
exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have
to see as to whether a prima facie case has been
made out. Whether a case of probable conviction
for commission of an offence has been made out on
the basis of the materials found during
investigation should be the concern of the Court.
It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the
matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence.
It would ordinarily not consider as to whether the
accused would be able to establish his defence, if
any.”
19. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed in the
above terms.
20. All pending applications (if any) are also disposed of.
21. One copy of this judgment be placed on the LCR and be
sent back forthwith.
22. No order as to costs.
I.S.MEHTA, J
NOVEMBER 03, 2017/sr
CRL.REV.P. 613/2017 Page 8 of 8
