The State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Alias Ors. on 17 November, 2017

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P.142/2017
Order reserved on : 7th November, 2017
Order pronounced on :17th November, 2017

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State with
W/SI Anita P.S.-Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi.

Versus

ROSHAN LAL @ROSHAN ORS. …..Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajay Sinha, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Inderpal Khalchu, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred ‘Cr.P.C.’), assailing the order dated 03.11.2016
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi in FIR No. 384/2016, whereby respondents Roshan
Lal @ Roshan and Rajesh @ Kabeer were acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections 376D/506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station-
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in June, 2015 prosecurix X (real
name withheld in order to conceal her identity) had gone to a

CRL.REV.P.142/2017 Page 1 of 5
banquet hall at Palwal, Faridabad for an event management
program. There was an exchange of hot words with coordinator
Raunak whereupon he asked her to sit in a vehicle in which two
boys under the influence of alcohol were already present. She
along with one girl namely Anju sat in the vehicle. Anju got down
at Chhatarpur Metro Station. After Anju left, one of the boys
namely Sandy committed rape upon her while the other boy started
playing loud music. She was thrown out of the vehicle near
Dwarka Mor and was also threatened of dire consequences. The
prosecutrix was thereafter mentally disturbed and thus never
mentioned the incident to anyone and only when the father of the
prosecutrix pressurized her for marriage, she narrated the incident
of rape.
3. Vide impugned order dated 03.11.2016, the Additional Sessions
Judge (SFTC), directed to discharge the respondents under Section
376D/506 IPC.
4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Akshai Malik, learned APP for
the State contended that the Trial Court erred in discharging the
respondents at a premature stage as at the stage of framing of the
charge, the Court is to consider only prima facie aspect of the case
and not to evaluate the evidence and to pass judgement of
discharge or contravention of the case; that the Trial Court while
passing the order, failed to appreciate the fact that in her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also she has corroborated the
same facts; that the Trial Court, while passing the order dated
03.11.2016, failed to appreciate the fact that in all her statements

CRL.REV.P.142/2017 Page 2 of 5
she had stated that Anju was with her and had got down at the
Chhatarpur Metro Station after which the incident had taken place
thus non-examination of Anju is not fatal to the case; that the
prosecutrix has in all her statements stated the reason for delay in
lodging the F.I.R.; that the Trial Court while passing the order has
wrongly considered the fact that the prosecutrix had admitted
before the court that she had sent messages to the respondent on his
mobile number.
5. Per Contra, Mr. Ajay Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent
contended that impugned order does not suffer from any
jurisdictional infirmity or with material irregularity so as to warrant
any interference by this Court.
6. I have given my considered thought to the submissions raised by
counsel for parties and perused material available on record.
7. Record reveals that, as per the prosecutrix, her rape was committed
in June, 2015 and she did not report it until the day she was asked
to get married. On that day she tried to commit suicide by
consuming phenyl, as she was mentally disturbed. The FIR in the
present case has been lodged at a very belated stage i.e. on
10.04.2016 after about 10 months of the alleged incident which
took place in June, 2015. The delay in lodging the report raises a
considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the
prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and
renders it unsafe to base any conviction. Delay in lodging of the
FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of
afterthought. It is therefore that the delay in lodging the FIR be

CRL.REV.P.142/2017 Page 3 of 5
satisfactorily explained. The purpose and object of insisting upon
prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission
of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of
actual culprits and the part played by them as well the names of eye
witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.
8. Reference may be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in
Jagannivasan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1995 Supp(3) SCC
204, where the Supreme Court acquitted the person from the
charges under Section 376 when victim did not inform the
commission of offence to her parents immediately after the
incident and went to the dancing performance although delay in
filing of the FIR was only six days.
9. Further reference has also been made to Rajesh Patel Vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in (2013)3 SCC 791 wherein also delay of 11
days was considered fatal and termed as inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR while acquitting the convict for the offence under
Section 376 of the IPC.
10. Further, the independent prosecution witness Mukesh Chauhan has
not supported the claim of the prosecutrix that the respondents
were drunk on the night of the incident. Moreover, the prosecutrix
remained in touch with the respondents even after the incident and
on 17.09.2016 she herself admitted to this at the time of hearing the
bail application of accused Rajesh.
11. There is a gross delay in filing the complaint and, therefore, in
absence of proper explanation regarding such delay, no cognizance

CRL.REV.P.142/2017 Page 4 of 5
can be taken by the Court and, hence, the base of the investigation
itself is improper, irregular and illegal.
12. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the
reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order,
do not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and accordingly, the
present Criminal Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.
13. Ordered accordingly.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

NOVEMBER 17, 2017
/gr//

CRL.REV.P.142/2017 Page 5 of 5

Leave a Comment

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