The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of State vs Mohd. Javed Nasir & Ors. consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that a statement made u/s 164 CrPC disclosing the offence of rape shall be sufficient to frame charges u/s 376 IPC.
Facts
This revision petition was filed by the State assailing the order passed in a case arising out of an FIR whereby the accused persons were discharged u/s 376 IPC and charges had been framed against them u/s 323/354/354B/458/509 read with Section 34 IPC.
While doing work near the victim's home, accused Nasiruddin made motions towards her, which she objected to. Nasiruddin, his son, and some of his friends then proceeded to fight the victim, but they left after he called the police. Three days after the event, the accused entered the victim's house unlawfully and assaulted her to outrage her modesty.
Procedural History
On the day of the incident, the complainant notified the police, and officers escorted her to the station to file a FIR. The prosecutrix told the Magistrate u/s 164 CrPC that one of the accused inserted a finger into her genitals. The next day, the complainant went to the hospital with a stomach-ache and genital bleeding. During the investigation, the victim gave the officer a torn kurta pyjama. Following the victim's statement, Section 376 IPC was introduced. Charge-sheet was filed u/s 376/323/354/354-B/458/509/34 IPC, and the learned Trial Court discharged the accused u/s 376 IPC.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that learned Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and appreciated the evidence in detail at the stage of framing of charge. It was also contended that the learned Trial Court ignored the settled law that even if two views are possible at the stage of framing of charge, the view in the favour of prosecution should be accepted. It was also contended that the prosecutrix had revealed that she did not mention the occurrence of the incident earlier as she was afraid that her honour and dignity will be compromised.
Respondent: It was contended that the medical examination of the victim revealed that there was an alleged history of physical assault by a neighbour, however, no history of any sexual assault, no complaint of pain in the abdomen/LPV/BPV and no fresh external injury on the body of the petitioner at the time of examination had been observed.
Observations by the Court
The Bench, citing Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, reaffirmed that the trial court is not supposed to reveal the evidence on record to determine whether an accused would be acquitted or convicted of a certain crime. In Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., it was ruled that during the charge stage, the court must not conduct a mini-trial and base its decision on prima facie evidence. It noticed that prosecutrix didn't mention rape during drafting of charges, but during her statement u/s 164 CrPC.
Reference was made to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hazrat Deen v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement u/s 164 CrPC cannot be a ground for discharge without trial.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the learned Trial Court committed an error in discharging the accused by giving undue weightage to the discrepancies in the statements of prosecutrix. It held that a statement made u/s 164 CrPC disclosing the offence of rape shall be sufficient to frame charges u/s 376 IPC.
It noted that a person may not be in an emotional or physical state to take an immediate stand against the assailant or to undergo police investigation or intrusive medical examination, and an accused should not be discharged under Section 376 because the prosecutrix has not stated about this in her FIR or during MLC.
An excessive effort to examine evidence in detail and determine the case before it begins can damage the case and the victim's faith in the criminal justice system. MLC can't always disclose incidents especially when a rape was allegedly committed without restraint marks or medical evidence. Thus, trial judges must not examine evidence when writing charges; they must frame charges where a prima facie offense exists.
Case: State vs Mohd. Javed Nasir & Ors.
Citation: CRL.REV. P. 268/2018
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decided on: 23rd November 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
