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/