High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.635/2019 registered under Section 376 of IPC.
Brief Facts:
On 23.04.2019 WSI Anita received DD No. 28-A and the complainant/prosecutrix aged about 22 years narrated her about the incident of sexual assault by the accused/petitioner. The statement of the complainant/prosecutrix was recorded after due counselling. As per allegations, both complainant/prosecutrix and accused/petitioner are blind and they developed good relationship/friendship in 2018. The petitioner used to say that he wanted to be complainant’s better half. The petitioner got job in State Bank of India in 2019 and in March, 2019 he hired a rented accommodation in GTB Nagar. On 19.04.2019, the petitioner called the complainant/prosecutrix at his rented accommodation and asked her to stay as he was not feeling well and thereafter tried to forcefully indulge and have sex with her. The complainant/prosecutrix denied for the same. Thereafter on 24.04.2019, accused/petitioner put sindoor on her head and established physical relations in the rented accommodation on the assurance of solemnizing marriage.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that the incident took place on 24.04.2019 but the complaint has only been made after a gap of about 8 months. A call alleged to have been made on behalf of the accused/petitioner for influencing the complainant/prosecutrix was not found to be correct on investigation, as stated by the learned APP for the State on instructions.
HC observed that both the petitioner as well as the prosecutrix are visually impaired and seek effective enforcement of their rights from opposite ends. The parties are entitled to be well versed with the proceedings of the litigation they pursue and the documents which materially affect their legal rights.
HC stated that “on a clear reading of Section 12 of the RPwD Act, 2016 it can be seen that a positive duty has been cast upon the appropriate government under sub-section 4 to ensure that all public documents are in accessible formats. Further it is mandated to make available all necessary facilities and equipment to facilitate recording of testimonies, arguments or opinion given by persons with disabilities in their preferred language and means of communication. Right to access to justice includes the right to receive documents to which the parties are legally entitled in the language and means of communication decipherable by them.”
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the State is directed to make suitable arrangements and provide the prosecutrix as well as the petitioner the copy of the documents to which they are legally entitled in their preferred language and means of communication to ensure that they can effectively pursue and protect their legal rights. The state government is also directed to make necessary arrangements for providing the court documents in a readable language to the visually impaired in all such cases wherever the circumstances so warrant and information be suitably disseminated to bring it to notice of all concerned.”
Case Title: Shivam Soni v. State
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 3243/2019 & Crl. M.A. No.43735/2019
Decided on: 7th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
