Haider vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The revisionist has been charged under Sections 497, 376, 504, and 506 IPC, on 08.02.2019 in Sessions Trial No.121 of 2018, State vs. Haider. This order framing charge is impugned in this revision.

Facts necessary to resolve the controversy are stated as hereunder:-

Respondent no.3 filed an application, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. According to it, the revisionist by enticing the wife of respondent no.3 (the victim) established illicit physical relations with her. To accomplish it, the victim would administer sleeping pills to him in collusion with the revisionist, for which respondent no.3 had to get himself treated by some doctor. On 07.10.2017 at 05:00, in the afternoon, the respondent no.3 found the revisionist and the victim in compromising position, both nude. The revisionist ran away and later on, the revisionist threatened respondent no.3 that he had obscene photographs and video of his wife, and if any action is taken, according to him, he would make them public. Based on this application, on 13.11.2017 order for investigation was made. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 497, 376, 504, 506 IPC and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short "I.T. Act") was submitted against the revisionist. It is the basis of Session Trial No.121 of 2018.

The revisionist challenged the charge sheet in C482 No.1252 of 2018. The petition filed by the revisionist under Section 482 of the Code was dismissed. However, the Court observed that it shall be open for the revisionist to raise all the contentions, which would be available to him under law, at the time of framing of charge.

On behalf of the revisionist arguments were raised at the stage of framing of charge and on the same day, the court held that there are sufficient grounds for framing the charge under Sections 376, 506 and 504 IPC against the revisionist but, the revisionist was discharged of the accusation under Section 497 IPC and 67 of the I.T. Act. Consequent upon, charges were framed on 8.02.2019. There is an apparent error in the charge dated 8.02.2019, because the revisionist had already been discharged by the court on 16.01.2019, of the accusation under Section 497 IPC, but still he was charged under Section 497 IPC.

Aggrieved by this framing of charge, the instant revision has been preferred.

Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Mr. A.K. Sah, learned AGA for the State.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that in fact, it is a case of illicit relationship between the victim and revisionist. Both are adults. It is an act of consensual sex, which has been twisted so as to foist the revisionist in an offence. Reference has been made to the contents of the FIR and the subsequent statement of the victim. Learned counsel would argue that the victim was a lady of 30 years; she was deceiving her husband; according to FIR, itself she was giving sleeping pills to her husband in deception; no grounds were found to frame charge under section 67 of the I.T. Act, which, according to learned counsel for the revisionist, establishes that, in fact, no coercion of any kind, whatsoever, was practised by the revisionist. Therefore, it is argued that charges ought not to have been framed.

On behalf of the State, learned AGA would submit that the victim in her statement to the investigating officer states that the revisionist forcefully had sex with her and five witnesses have already been examined at the trial. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage.

In this matter, fact remains that, respondent no.2, the victim, and three more witnesses have already been examined. The trial, in itself, is at a very advanced stage. The Court should be much cautious to make any interference at this stage and scrutiny should also be made very carefully.

It is true that in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code, respondent no.3 states that the victim and the revisionist had illicit relations. He also states that it is the revisionist, who enticed and somehow managed to establish his relationship with the victim, who in collusion with the revisionist would give him sleeping pills. Respondent no.3 caught both of them in compromising position on one day, when they were nude. Thereafter, the revisionist ran away from there and the victim was sent along with her father. But, there are statements thereafter recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code, which gives different story. According to it the revisionist befriended and once established physical relation with the victim. The victim realized her mistake and categorically expressed her intention to discontinue relationship with the revisionist but the revisionist threatened her saying that he had pictured their intimate video, which he would make public, if the victim would deny him of physical relationship. Revisionist had shown the video to the victim. Under this threat he continued to have physical relations with the victim. This is what the victim reiterated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code.

The Trial is, in fact, at its advanced stage. The victim has been examined. She has leveled allegations of rape against the revisionist. Now it is a matter of deeper scrutiny of the evidence. It is a matter of appreciation, which should be left to be done by the learned court below. It is not a case, in which at this stage, any interference may be warranted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted at this stage and the revision deserved to be dismissed.

As stated, the revisionist had already been discharged of the accusation under Section 497 IPC, but it appears, due to inadvertence, the charge under Section 497 IPC has been framed against him. The learned court below may rectify the error on producing a copy of this judgment.

With the above observations, the revision is accordingly, dismissed.