No reasonable man will believe on the story which prosecutrix is narrating: High Court Quashes Rape Charges in Case of Marital Dispute

Share:
family mental Land Criminal Policy High CourtLand Electricity Marital Marriage emphasizes balance between the accused’s rights and judicial efficiency in corruption charges under Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. In a significant ruling on June 7, 2024, the Delhi High Court upheld the Special Judge’s order rejecting the deferment of arguments on charges in the high-profile Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 corruption case. The bench, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, stressed the importance of fair trial rights while ensuring that proceedings are conducted without unnecessary delays. The case involves allegations of a criminal conspiracy and corruption in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR on August 17, 2022, accusing several individuals, including public servants, of receiving substantial kickbacks to create loopholes in the policy, which were later exploited. The investigation revealed that around Rs. 90-100 crores were paid in advance by individuals from the South Indian liquor business to co-accused, forming a cartel among liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Arun Ramchandran Pillai, one of the accused, challenged the trial court’s decision to proceed with arguments on charge, seeking deferment until supplementary chargesheets against other co-accused were filed. Ensuring Fair Trial: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the necessity of providing the accused with all relevant materials collected by the prosecution to prepare their defense. “Section 207 Cr.P.C. underscores the importance of ensuring an accused is fully informed about the case against them, enabling a thorough defense,” she noted. The court recognized the complexity of the conspiracy charges, highlighting the interlinked roles of the accused. Balancing Speedy Proceedings: The court addressed the need to balance the rights of the accused with the imperative of avoiding undue delays. “The judicial process must not be hindered by strategic delays,” Justice Sharma observed. The court noted that the CBI assured the filing of a supplementary chargesheet against co-accused Smt. K. Kavitha by June 10, 2024, and directed the trial court to ensure timely supply of these documents to the accused. The High Court extensively deliberated on the principles of fair trial and speedy justice. It reiterated that while the accused must be provided with all incriminating evidence, the proceedings should not be stalled. “The trial court’s approach of halting arguments on charge upon the filing of any supplementary chargesheet and then resuming them ensures a balanced approach,” the court stated. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “The accused’s right to a fair trial is paramount, yet it must coexist with the judiciary’s duty to avoid unnecessary procedural delays.” The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the petition reinforces the judicial commitment to balancing fair trial rights with the need for expeditious proceedings. By affirming the trial court’s order and directing the timely provision of supplementary chargesheets, the judgment ensures that the judicial process remains efficient while safeguarding the rights of the accused. This ruling is expected to set a precedent for handling complex conspiracy cases, ensuring both fairness and efficiency in the judicial process. Date of Decision: June 7, 2024 Arun Ramchandran Pillai vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Engineer Property Suicide Legal Evidence Sexual Motor Food Cheque personal Registrar Intervention Marriage EvidenceWife Motor PoliceCriminal License

In a notable judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed the rape charges against the petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Soni, stemming from a complex marital dispute. The bench, led by Hon’ble Justice Vishal Dhagat, emphasized the lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner. This decision underscores the necessity for clear and consistent testimonies in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the prosecutrix at the Govindpura Police Station in Bhopal, where she accused Sandeep Kumar Soni of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage, and subsequent threats to her life. The complaint led to charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix and petitioner were married on October 27, 2021, in Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhopal. The petitioner filed for nullification of the marriage shortly thereafter, claiming that the relationship was coerced and that the prosecutrix had affiliations with other individuals.

Justice Dhagat meticulously examined the prosecutrix’s statements, finding significant discrepancies. “From her statement, it is clear that she did not surrender to petitioner for making sexual intercourse on believing false promise of marriage to be true,” the judge noted. The prosecutrix alleged repeated forceful rapes but failed to lodge any FIRs promptly, which cast doubts on her narrative’s credibility.

The court observed that the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix had a longstanding history, spanning over five years. During this period, no formal complaints of rape were filed, which the court found inconsistent with the prosecutrix’s allegations of continuous sexual assault under duress. “Despite forceful rape being committed by the petitioner on her repeatedly for long time, she did not lodge FIR against petitioner on the contrary she also married the petitioner,” the judgment highlighted.

The legal reasoning centered around Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, provided she is not under 18 years of age, does not constitute rape. The court found that the alleged incidents of rape occurred before the formalization of marriage and thus did not fall under the purview of this exception. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecutrix’s actions did not align with someone misled by a false promise of marriage, but rather indicated consensual actions within a troubled relationship.

Justice Vishal Dhagat remarked, “No reasonable man will believe on the story which prosecutrix is narrating before the police station regarding commission of rape on her.” This statement encapsulated the court’s skepticism towards the prosecutrix’s claims and underscored the necessity for coherent and plausible evidence in such cases.

The High Court’s decision to quash the charges against Sandeep Kumar Soni marks a significant moment in the judicial handling of cases involving complex interpersonal relationships and allegations of sexual assault. By highlighting the inconsistencies and lack of timely legal actions by the prosecutrix, the court has reinforced the importance of credible evidence in upholding justice. This ruling is expected to influence future cases, particularly those involving marital disputes and allegations of false promises of marriage.

Date of Decision: May 15, 2024

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI  VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH and VICTIM A .

Download Judgment

Share: