ABC Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by a victim in back drop of facts that she was subjected to forceful rape. Initially a missing report was lodged by the husband of victim as such it is the grievance that the statement for rape under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. is not being recorded/sponsored by the prosecution agency despite all efforts by the victim.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner/prosecutrix, she works as a garbage picker, when she reached the house of respondent No.5 certain spray were administered on her as such she became unconscious/semiconscious and thereafter rape was committed. It is stated such act recorded too which was subsequently made public in the internet, in common parlance was made viral. It is further stated that when she confronted the commission of sexual assault to the respondent, she was made to sign certain blank documents on the promise that contents of internet would be removed but eventually it did not happen. Allegations are that on 16/04/2022, at the initial stage when the prosecutrix was forcefully abducted a missing report was lodged by the husband of the prosecutrix at Police Station and case was registered. Subsequently because of certain video were made viral, offence under Sec. 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act was registered. It is stated that despite all persuasion made even by the representation to the higher officials of the police the statement of the prosecutrix is not being recorded which she wanted to get it recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit with the amendment made in Sec. 164 (5A) Cr.P.C. makes it mandatory to get the statement of the victim recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. in cases of sexual assault. He further submits that the Supreme Court in latest judgement of Jagjeet Singh and ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.632/2022 considered the right of the victim and it was held that at the investigation stage too the victim would have a right to get her statement recorded. He also placed his reliance in (2000) 1 SCC 272 in between Jogendra Nahak and ors v. State of Orissa and ors. to submit that it is not necessary to get a witness to be sponsored by the prosecution agency he/she can volunteer also and the Magistrate would be under obligation to record the statement which would be part of the investigation, therefore the statement of the victim be ordered to be recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate.