The State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Alias Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 6537 Del

$~

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CRL.REV.P.142/2017
                           Order reserved on : 7th November, 2017
                        Order pronounced on :17th November, 2017

      THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                   .....Petitioner
               Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State with
                        W/SI Anita P.S.-Uttam Nagar, New
                        Delhi.

                                  Versus

      ROSHAN LAL @ROSHAN & ORS.                  .....Respondent

                     Through:    Mr. Ajay Sinha, Adv. for R-1.
                                Mr. Inderpal Khalchu, Adv. for R-2.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1.    The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
      Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
      (hereinafter referred 'Cr.P.C.'), assailing the order dated 03.11.2016
      passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), Dwarka Courts,
      New Delhi in       FIR No. 384/2016, whereby respondents Roshan
      Lal @ Roshan and Rajesh @ Kabeer were acquitted of the offence
      punishable under Sections 376D/506 of the Indian Penal Code,
      1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') registered at Police Station-
      Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
2.    Brief facts of the case are that in June, 2015 prosecurix X (real
      name withheld in order to conceal her identity) had gone to a



CRL.REV.P.142/2017                                         Page 1 of 5
       banquet hall at Palwal, Faridabad for an event management
      program. There was an exchange of hot words with coordinator
      Raunak whereupon he asked her to sit in a vehicle in which two
      boys under the influence of alcohol were already present. She
      along with one girl namely Anju sat in the vehicle. Anju got down
      at Chhatarpur Metro Station. After Anju left, one of the boys
      namely Sandy committed rape upon her while the other boy started
      playing loud music. She was thrown out of the vehicle near
      Dwarka Mor and was also threatened of dire consequences. The
      prosecutrix was thereafter mentally disturbed and thus never
      mentioned the incident to anyone and only when the father of the
      prosecutrix pressurized her for marriage, she narrated the incident
      of rape.
3.    Vide impugned order dated 03.11.2016, the Additional Sessions
      Judge (SFTC), directed to discharge the respondents under Section
      376D/506 IPC.
4.    Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Akshai Malik, learned APP for
      the State contended that the Trial Court erred in discharging the
      respondents at a premature stage as at the stage of framing of the
      charge, the Court is to consider only prima facie aspect of the case
      and not to evaluate the evidence and to pass judgement of
      discharge or contravention of the case; that the Trial Court while
      passing the order, failed to appreciate the fact that in her statement
      recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also she has corroborated the
      same facts; that the Trial Court, while passing the order dated
      03.11.2016, failed to appreciate the fact that in all her statements


CRL.REV.P.142/2017                                         Page 2 of 5
       she had stated that Anju was with her and had got down at the
      Chhatarpur Metro Station after which the incident had taken place
      thus non-examination of Anju is not fatal to the case; that the
      prosecutrix has in all her statements stated the reason for delay in
      lodging the F.I.R.; that the Trial Court while passing the order has
      wrongly considered the fact that the prosecutrix had admitted
      before the court that she had sent messages to the respondent on his
      mobile number.
5.    Per Contra, Mr. Ajay Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent
      contended that impugned order does not suffer from any
      jurisdictional infirmity or with material irregularity so as to warrant
      any interference by this Court.
6.    I have given my considered thought to the submissions raised by
      counsel for parties and perused material available on record.
7.    Record reveals that, as per the prosecutrix, her rape was committed
      in June, 2015 and she did not report it until the day she was asked
      to get married. On that day she tried to commit suicide by
      consuming phenyl, as she was mentally disturbed. The FIR in the
      present case has been lodged at a very belated stage i.e. on
      10.04.2016 after about 10 months of the alleged incident which
      took place in June, 2015. The delay in lodging the report raises a
      considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the
      prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and
      renders it unsafe to base any conviction. Delay in lodging of the
      FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of
      afterthought. It is therefore that the delay in lodging the FIR be


CRL.REV.P.142/2017                                         Page 3 of 5
       satisfactorily explained. The purpose and object of insisting upon
      prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission
      of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the
      circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of
      actual culprits and the part played by them as well the names of eye
      witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.
8.    Reference may be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in
      Jagannivasan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1995 Supp(3) SCC
      204, where the Supreme Court acquitted the person from the
      charges under Section 376 when victim did not inform the
      commission of offence to her parents immediately after the
      incident and went to the dancing performance although delay in
      filing of the FIR was only six days.
9.    Further reference has also been made to Rajesh Patel Vs. State of
      Jharkhand reported in (2013)3 SCC 791 wherein also delay of 11
      days was considered fatal and termed as inordinate delay in
      lodging the FIR while acquitting the convict for the offence under
      Section 376 of the IPC.
10.   Further, the independent prosecution witness Mukesh Chauhan has
      not supported the claim of the prosecutrix that the respondents
      were drunk on the night of the incident. Moreover, the prosecutrix
      remained in touch with the respondents even after the incident and
      on 17.09.2016 she herself admitted to this at the time of hearing the
      bail application of accused Rajesh.
11.   There is a gross delay in filing the complaint and, therefore, in
      absence of proper explanation regarding such delay, no cognizance


CRL.REV.P.142/2017                                        Page 4 of 5
       can be taken by the Court and, hence, the base of the investigation
      itself is improper, irregular and illegal.
12.   In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the
      reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order,
      do not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and accordingly, the
      present Criminal Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.
13.   Ordered accordingly.



                                      SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

NOVEMBER 17, 2017 /gr//