Ramfal Prajapati Aged About 66 Years Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10369 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ramfal Prajapati Aged About 66 Years Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 12 November, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Criminal Revision No.1144 of 2024
                                          ....

Ramfal Prajapati aged about 66 years son of Late Sugan Prajapati resident of Village Jabra P.O. and P.S. Mandu District Hazaribag .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ....

          CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

          For the Petitioner               : Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Adv.
          For the State                    : Mr. S.K.Dubey, A.P.P.
                                           ....
          03/12.11.2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with S.T. Case No.140 of 2023 arising out of Mandu P.S. Case No.342 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3822 of 2014, registered for the offence under Sections 376 and 120B of IPC, whereby prayer for discharge has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued on following points:-

i. There is mention of phone call which suggest that there is somebody behind this false allegation.

ii. The case is not corroborated by the medical evidence. iii. There are various Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments which says that if there is long term consensual relationship then it cannot be termed as rape.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that in the F.I.R. the victim has clearly stated that rape has been committed upon her by force. She has been threatened and she has succumb to the pressure due to her children. Further, her mother has also not co-operated to her. Rather there was a phone call for not lodging the F.I.R. and that is the reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R.

5. Thus, there is clear cut allegation which has been supported by the victim. Accordingly, at this stage, the discharge petition has rightly been rejected by the trial court and this Court finds no reason to entertain the present criminal revision.

6. Thus, the present criminal revision stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/