Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 198 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-02-15

D.N.PRASAD

body2002
JUDGMENT D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 21-12-2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2001 by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision application is that Opposite Party No. 2 (Amna Khatoon) filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 406 of 2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh forthe offence under Sections 376/420 of Indian Penal Code which was sent to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station for registration of the First Information Report and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It has been alleged that in the month of July 1992, when the victim Amna Khatoon was present in her house alone, the petitioner entered into her house and committed rape forcibly. It is further alleged that when the victim started weeping she was assured by the petitioner that he would marry her and he also asked her not to disclose the matter to any body. It was further alleged that on the false promise of marriage, the petitioner used to commit rape on the victim but later on, the petitioner refused to marry her and, thereafter, the complaint was filed, on the basis of which, the First Information Report was registered and after investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted by the police for the offence under Sections 376/497 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the petitioner thereafter filed a petitioner in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for discharge which was rejected by the impugned order, hence this revision application. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the complainant/victim is a married Lady and she is major and she remained silent for about eight years and, as such, she was the consenting party and, therefore, the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the complainant/victim is a married Lady and she is major and she remained silent for about eight years and, as such, she was the consenting party and, therefore, the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is also submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2 herself sent an Advocates Notice on 17-2-2001 to the petitioner asking him to marry her and, even if there was any physical relationship with the petitioner/accused that remains for about eight years which will be presumed that the relationship was with consent of the Opposite Party No. 2 and thus, the learned Court below committed error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended before me that there is a specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he had entered into the house of the Opposite Party No. 2 victim on the first opportunity of time when she was alone in her house and forcibly committed rape on her which itself establishes that the petitioner committed rape on the victim and, thereafter, physical relationship was continuing on the false pretext of assurance given by the petitioner, which has also not been complied. Moreover, the police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as well. 7. On perusal, it is clear that the allegation has been made by the victim Amna Khatoon that the petitioner had entered into her house when she was alone and committed rape on her forcibly which goes without any doubt that he petitioner had committed rape on her without her consent. It is true that physical relationship remained for some time, but it was continued only on the false assurance given by the petitioner for which no one else except the petitioner held to be liable for such false assurance. Moreover, it has been settled that charge can even be framed on the material on record capable of inferring strong suspicion about the commission of offence. Moreover, it has been settled that charge can even be framed on the material on record capable of inferring strong suspicion about the commission of offence. In the instant case, there appears sufficient material at this stage for framing of charge against the petitioner and as such I, find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge and the impugned order does not require to be interfered with. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision application which is, accordingly, dismissed.