Priya Gour
Published on: 18th August, 2022 at 19:55 IST
The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and JB Pardiwala disagreed with the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which discharged a rape accused solely on the ground of delay in registration of the first information report (FIR).
The bench expressed disappointment over the fact that the decision was not appealed by the state government, which compelled the father of the deceased rape victim to approach the apex court.
The bench cited the judgement as “disturbing” and “utterly incomprehensible.”
“The facts of this litigation are quite heart-breaking and, at the same time, more disturbing is the utterly incomprehensible impugned judgement of the High Court discharging the accused of the offence of rape essentially on the ground of delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).”
“It was expected of the State to challenge the illegal order passed by the High Court. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters, the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the state, which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large.”
About the Case:
The deceased (the appellant’s daughter) had committed suicide after getting impregnated. She accused Amit Tiwari of the same. Thereafter, a case was registered against the accused for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.
The investigation was completed and a charge sheet against the accused was filed. The order given by the special court was challenged citing its legality by the accused, who filed a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court under Section 397 of the CrPC.
The High Court permitted the same in the order and held that the complaint to the police was made with a delay.
The High Court also took cognizance of the statement of the deceased’s mother. Afterwards,the accused was discharged, following which no appeal was made by the state in the Supreme Court. This compelled the deceased girl’s father to move to the apex court.
The Supreme Court noted that it was mainly argued before the High Court that on the date of the commission of the offence, the deceased was a major and was in a relationship with the accused on her own free will and volition.
The accused could not be said to have committed any offence as alleged. Surprisingly, even the state, to a certain extent, supported the submission canvassed on behalf of the accused before the High Court, the top court noted.
Court Decision:
The High Court had wrongly discharged the accused of all the charges on the ground of delay in FIR. It was noted, “At the cost of repetition, we state that the impugned order of the High Court is utterly incomprehensible. We have yet to come across a case where the High Court has thought fit to discharge an accused charged with the offence of rape on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR.”
The top court reaffirmed that while it is open to a High Court to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence.
“In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not.”
The trial must proceed unhindered once the charges are framed and due opportunity must be given to the prosecution to place all evidence. Any attempt by an accused to get the framed charges quashed after the recording evidence is not justified.
Explaining the scope of Section 397 CrPC, the bench said:
“Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. “
The court set aside the High Court judgement without citing on the merits of the exact and correct age of the deceased at the time of the commission of the offence, and left it up to the trial trial court.
“It is for the trial court to determine the correct age on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence,” the court ruled.
Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court decision and permitted the trial court to proceed with the trials.