HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1303 / 2016
Naveen Jangid S/o Shri Ramchandra Jangid, Ward No. 18,
Sujangarh, Distt. Churu, Rajasthan.
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Sarita W/o Santosh Kumar Nai, R/o Aadhipatti Sadhana
Thikana Ke Piche, Ladnu, District Nagour.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP.
Mr. Vippin Makkad.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
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)
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
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)
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
24.08.2016 which is under challenge in the instant revision
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
(4 of 5)
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.
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)
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.