Delhi High Court
The State ( Nct Of Delhi) vs Sankat Mochan & Anr on 31 January, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 461/2016 & Crl.M.A.10402/2016
Reserved on : 29.01.2020
Date of Decision : 31.01.2020
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State.
versus
SANKAT MOCHAN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
1. The present revision petition is directed against order dated
15.01.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in SC No.09/2015 arising
out of FIR No.825/2014, P.S. New Usmanpur, Delhi, whereby the
respondents were discharged of the offence under Section 506/34 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 05.09.2014,
the prosecutrix went to Police Station New Usmanpur and DD No.24A
was recorded, in which it was mentioned that her land lord Munna Lal
and his auto driver Gautam had committed rape upon her. Her statement
was recorded and FIR was registered. It was stated that the prosecutrix
was distantly related to Vidhyanchali/respondent No.2, who is the wife
of Munna Lal. At the relevant time, she was staying with accused
Munna Lal as a tenant. Somewhere in April 2014, accused Munna Lal
along with Gautam, who was also residing in the same premises,
forcibly entered her room and raped her one after the other. She was
also threatened that in case she disclosed the said incident to any
person, she would be killed.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the FIR in the present
case was registered under Section 376(2)(g)/506 IPC.
4. On the same day, the prosecutrix was medically examined and
her MLC was prepared. In the history of assault given by her, it was
stated that Munna Lal and Gautam had committed rape upon her and
also threatened her.
5. On the next day, i.e. on 06.09.2014, the statement of the
prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The impugned
order with respect to her statement reads as follows: -
"3. During investigation, statement of the prosecutrix under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. The English translation of her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"I have been raped by landlord Munna Lal and
Gautam together. After the incident of rape, my
sister Vidhyanchali came and said as to why I was
weeping and it was I who had sent your brother-in-
law Sankat Mochan @ Babloo stated that if any
false allegation is made on his father, he will
sprinkle acid on me. Munna Lal looks at me with
evil eyes. I have left him as he is related to me. I do
not want to add anything. My advocate would come
on Monday. I am liberate. I am selling corncobs
(bhootas) at Old Delhi station."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was delay of
more than 5 ½ months in lodging the FIR by the prosecutrix. Even at
that time, the prosecutrix did not level any allegations against the
present respondents. Further, at the time of her medical examination,
she again did not level any allegations against the present respondents.
He has drawn the attention of the Court to her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., where it was stated that her Advocate would come
on Monday, to urge that the prosecutrix was in touch with a counsel and
as such, naming of the present respondents was an after-thought. It is
relevant to note that the respondents are the son and wife of accused
Munna Lal.
7. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on
28.10.2014 where the name of respondent No.1 was kept in Column
No.12. In the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 01.11.2014, names
of both the respondents were mentioned in Column No.12. The
Investigating Officer at the time of filing the charge-sheet also enclosed
an NGO statement of the victim where again the allegations were
levelled only against accused Munna Lal and Gautam.
8. Initially, both the respondents were summoned vide order dated
01.11.2014, however, later, while noting that the allegations were vague
and delayed, ld. Addl. Sessions Judge passed the order thereby
discharging both the respondents.
9. The incident occurred in April, 2014 and after a delay of 5 ½
months, the complaint was filed on 05.09.2014. The prosecutrix gave
history of assault to the doctor at the time of recording of her MLC
where the names of the present respondents were not taken by her. As
the complaint itself was filed after a period of 5 ½ months of the
incident, it is apparent that the same was filed after much thought and
consideration. I find considerable force in the argument of the learned
counsel for the respondents that the subsequent naming of the present
respondents was a result of an after-thought.
10. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is
dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2020
'dc'
