Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.The case of prosecution as unfolded by report U/s 173 Cr.PC is that on 07.12.2009 at about 5 p.m. at Shishmahal Park, Shalimar Bagh, accused Ashu @ Lala committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with complainant H (name of victim withheld. Name on judicial record) and that the accused attempted to commit extortion from the complainant H. The victim was medically examined at BJRM Hospital. The accused Ashu @ Lala was arrested and upon completion of investigation challan was prepared and filed in court for trial.

5.Thereafter accused examined U/s 313 Cr.PC on 21.06.2014. Accused claimed innocence and false implication. He wished not to lead defence evidence.

6. I have carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by ld APP for the state as well as by the ld. Legal aid counsel Sh. B. P. Singh.

7.In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused Ashu @Lala had committed carnal intercourse against order of the nature with complainant H and also attempted to commit extortion to him.

9.To substantiate its case, the prosecution was under the obligation to prove the following ingredients of the offence:

-that the accused committed carnal intercourse with the complainant H;

-that the accused attempted to commit extortion with complainant H.

10.The section 377 IPC was declared unconstitutional in so far it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private vide the judgment Naz Foundation vs Government Of NCT of Delhi, decided on 2 July, 2009 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.7455/2001. The said judgment has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgment dated 11.12.2013.

21.Lastly, the accused in the present case is also charged for the offence u/s 384/511 IPC for attempt to commit extortion to the complainant H. The offence of extortion would have been complete only when some money would have exchanged hands, but in the present case there is none. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Section 385 IPC seems to have been attracted, which reads as below:

385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.

Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.