Mahendra vs State & Anr on 15 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 956 / 2017
Mahendra Son of Shri Poonam Chand, By Caste Mehtar, Resident
of Udaimandir, Harizan Basti, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur Metro.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Sonu D/o Surya Prakash, By Caste Valmiki, Resident of
Kalla Nagar, Harizan Basti, Udaipur, Police Station Nagauri Gate,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Mathur.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Bhati, P.P., Mr.K.C.Pancharia.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2017

By way of this revision, the petitioner Mahendra has

approached this Court for challenging the order dated 12.5.2017

passed by the learned ASJ (Woman Atrocities Act Cases), Jodhpur

Metro in Sessions Case No.16/2017 whereby the trial court

directed framing of charges against him for the offences under

Sections 376(2)(N), 506 and 323 I.P.C.

Facts in brief:-

The respondent Smt.’S’ aged 22 years lodged a report

against the petitioner at the Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur

on 29.6.2016 alleging inter-alia that about 6 months ago, the

accused petitioner seduced her with a false promise of marriage

and after enticing her, she was made to stay as the wife of the
(2 of 5)
[CRLR-956/2017]

accused in a rented house. She was often beaten up. Her family

members were threatened with dire consequences and in this

manner, she was sexually exploited. She was prevented from

talking to anybody. She could not even contact her parents.

Because of the fear instilled in her mind by the accused, she

silently suffered sexual exploitation at his hands. She was made to

sign numerous blank papers and was also instigated to file false

cases against her own family members. The accused used to bring

other boys to the room and pressurized her to establish sexual

relations with them. When she refused, Sanjay Dharu, brother of

the petitioner and his mother used to beat her. Finally, the

accused ditched her and left her outside the Woman’s Police

Station. The petitioner’s family members did not allow her to come

inside their house and threatened to immolate her if she tried to

enter the house. They also made an attempt to sell her off,

meanwhle, as a result of the sexual relations, she became

pregnant from the accused, who did not desire the child. She

somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the accused,

but his mother Bhalu Devi managed to trap her and forcibly took

her to the hospital and got her aborted. Her indecent video clips

were recorded. Upon submission of this report, the Police made an

inquiry from the complainant upon which she divulged that she

was married to one Vijendra on 25.11.2015. On 4.1.2016 she

eloped with Mahendra on which her husband lodged a Missing

Persons Report at the Police Station Pratapnagar. She was

questioned during the course of inquiry of the said missing report

and stated that she had gone with Mahendra of her own free will.

(3 of 5)
[CRLR-956/2017]

Mahendra kept her at different places during the past six months

and used to beat her up. About two months prior to lodging of the

report, she was ditched and left outside the Women Police Station.

Her maternal grandmother understood her plight and provided her

shelter in her home. In the statement recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix virtually repeated the allegations as set out

in the F.I.R. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

the prosecutrix alleged that she was knowing Mahendra for about

past three years. She married Vijendra on 25.11.2015. She used

to spend time with Mahendra and both freely and frequently

indulged in carnal relations. Even after her marriage, Mahendra

used to call her. She was threatened that her indecent videos

would be made viral on internet. She categorically stated that the

physical relations established between her and Mahendra before

her marriage were consensual but after the marriage, Mahendra

started blackmailing her into continuing the liason. Initially, she

did not accede to the pressure exerted by Mahendra but finally,

she broke down and went away with him. Mahendra also tried to

kill her husband in an accident on 4.1.2016 on which, she became

apprehensive for her own life. She went away with Mahendra in

the morning at about 6 O’clock. She was taken to a friend’s house

at Sushant City where they stayed together for 2-3 months.

There, they indulged in frequent sexual trysts. Because of the

unprotected sex, she conceived on which the accused gave her

some tablets for abortion. Finally, the accused ditched her and

turned her out of the house. Upon concluding investigation, the

Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the
(4 of 5)
[CRLR-956/2017]

accused for the offences under Sections 376, 506 and 323 I.P.C.

The learned trial Judge proceeded to frame charges against the

accused petitioner for these very offences by the impugned order

dated 12.5.2017 which is assailed in the instant revision.

I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have

gone through the impugned order as well as the charge-sheet.

The prosecutrix who is a major married woman set up a

clear case in the belated written F.I.R. that the accused gave her a

false promise of marriage and established sexual relations with

her under this false assurance. However, upon being examined

under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that the sexual

relations established between her and the accused before her

marriage were consensual but later on, the accused used to

blackmail her into having sex. Apparently, the said allegation is

falsified from the story set up in the detailed F.I.R. in which an

allegation was made regarding sexual favours taken by the

accused under a false promise of marriage. Since the prosecutrix

was married from before to Vijendra and as she established sexual

relations with the accused during the subsisting marriage,

apparently, the claim made by the prosecutrix that she was allured

by the false promise of marriage given by the accused is totally

baseless, false and fictitious. There was no possibility of her

marriage with the accused during the subsistence of her valid

marriage with Vijendra. Thus apparently, the allegation of rape

under a false assertion of marriage cannot be sustained against

the petitioner even if the case set up by the prosecutrix is
(5 of 5)
[CRLR-956/2017]

accepted as true on the face of the record. The factual situation of

the case at hand is squarely covered by the Supreme Court

decision in the case of Prashant Bharati Vs. State of NCT of

Delhi reported in (2013)9 SCC 293. The learned trial Judge,

whilst considering the aspect of charge, did not advert to the

import of this specific legal bar whereby the case set up by the

prosecutrix could not be sustained even for a moment. Since the

principal allegation of the prosecutrix that she was threatened,

coerced and pressurized by the accused into establishing sexual

relations has been negated by this Court, ex-facie, charges for

offences under Sections 506 and 323 I.P.C. also fail as a

consequence thereof.

The revision thus deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The

impugned order dated 12.5.2017 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Act Cases), Jodhpur Metro is

hereby quashed and set aside as being grossly illegal. The accused

petitioner is discharged from all the offences.

SANDEEP MEHTA

/tarun goyal/

Leave a Comment

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