Jharkhand High Court
Rana Rajendra Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.896 of 2008
Rana Rajendra Kumar Singh. ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ...Opp. Party
-------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the State: A.P.P.
-------------
C.A.V. on 10.08.2009 : Pronounced on 17.08.2009
-------------
D.K.Sinha,J. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned
passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No.
199 of 2008 on 27.08.2008 by which prayer made on behalf of the petitioner
for his discharge under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was
rejected.
2. The prosecution story as contained in the written report
presented by the prosecutrix Sumitra Kumari was that she used to work in
the house of one Sushila at village Belwatiker as the latter was a nurse by
profession and prior to that she was working at Hind Sewa Sadan, Shahpur
till February, 2008 where she came in contact with the petitioner Rana
Rajendra Kumar Singh, a laboratory assistant in the said Sewa Sadan. As
the prosecutrix and the petitioner were working together, they developed
intimacy and in course of that it was alleged that the petitioner proposed the
prosecutrix to marry her to which she expressed affirmation. Pursuant to
such affirmation and consent for marriage the petitioner committed rape on
her on 05.12.2007 for the first time on the inducement that he would marry
her. Once sexual relation was established, it was alleged that the petitioner
committed rape on her for about 22 times and that the petitioner had
obtained Rs. 1,000/- from her on false pretext of making preparation for their
marriage but he did not solemnize marriage, instead the petitioner extended
threat when she put pressure for marriage. The Chainpur Police instituted a
case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and
submitted charge-sheet for the alleged offence after investigation.
3. The petitioner preferred a petition under Section 227 Code of
Criminal Procedure on the ground that under given facts and allegation no
offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was made out against him, thus he may be
discharged. But the learned Addl. Sessions Judge without appreciating the
merit of the petition and the requirement for constituting the offence of rape
as contained in Section 375 Indian Penal Code, rejected the petition with
the observation,
" From the perusal of the case record and the case
diary I find that at this stage there is sufficient evidence
for framing of the charge. There is no merit in the petition
2
of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition dated
22.07.2008is hereby rejected.
4. The learned Counsel assailed the impugned order on the ground that the prosecutrix admitted in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was aged about 21 years at the relevant time, therefore, she was quite competent to take independent decision and that the bodily relation was established every time with her consent as admittedly, it was nowhere alleged that the petitioner had applied force in sex with her without her consent. Therefore, no offence could be attracted against him under Section 376 I.P.C.
5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned Counsel further pointed out that the prosecutrix was a girl of easy virtue who had also instituted a case of gang rape in the past against Dr. Pramod Kumar Mehta and another with the similar allegation that on the inducement of marriage Dr. Pramod Kumar Mehta had committed rape on her. The Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix has used almost similar allegation against the petitioner what she had levelled against Dr. Pramod Kumar Mehta and this fact finds mentioned in the impugned order. The Counsel yet, submitted that under given facts and circumstances if at all any offence was made out, it was only under Section 417 I.P.C. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was subjected to blackmail and extortion at the hands of the prosecutrix and when he denied her accelerating illegal demand, present case was lodged by her.
6. The learned Counsel relied upon a decision reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C. 46. The Supreme Court in Uday Vs. State of Karnataka held:-
" The prosecutrix and the appellant were deeply in love. They met often, and it does appear that the prosecutrix permitted him liberties which, if at all, are permitted only to a person with whom one is in deep love. It is also not without significance that the prosecutrix stealthily went out with the appellant to a lonely place at 12 O'clock in the night. It usually happens in such cases, when two young persons are madly in love, that they promise to each other several times that come what may, they will get married. As stated by the prosecutrix the appellant also made such a promise on more than one occasion. In such circumstances the promise loses all significance, particularly when they are overcome with emotions and passion and find themselves in situations and circumstances where they, in a week moment, succumb to the temptation of having sexual relationship. This is what appears to have happened in this case as well, and the prosecutrix willingly consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant with whom she was deeply in love, not because he promised to marry her, but because she also desired it."
7. The Apex Court further observed:-
" The consensus of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual 3 intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of the Code."
8. I find that the prosecutrix had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to the petitioner to establish bodily relationship on the inducement and promise of marriage and therefore, the consent sex cannot come within the purview of Section 376 I.P.C. However, there appears prima facie elements for constituting an offence of cheating defined under Section 415 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner which is punishable under Section 417 Indian Penal Code without going further in details and that such offence is triable by a Magistrate of 1st Class.
9. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for discharge of the petitioner under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the case record is directed to be remitted back to the C.J.M., Daltonganj under Section 228(i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to proceed against the accused petitioner in accordance with law.
10. With the above observation, this petition is allowed.
[D.K.Sinha,J.] P.K.S./A.F.R.