NEHA MONGA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have been filed against the order dated 23rd April, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby one out of the ten charge-sheeted accused, who is the mother of the prosecutrix, was charged for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC and four other were charged under Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC while five were discharged. The accused who have been ordered to be tried under Section 376 read with 109 IPC have sought their discharge by filing two revision petitions(being Crl. Rev. P. Nos.402/2010 & 660/2010) while the State as well as the victim of rape filed separate revision petitions, being Crl. Revn. P. Nos.332/2011 & 378/2010 respectively, challenging the discharge of five accused persons who are the respondents in these two petitions. Since all the four petitions were heard together and common submissions were made from both sides the same are being disposed of together by this common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of these four petitions are that the prosecutrix had lodged a complaint with the police on 21st July, 2006 that she had been raped by her own father(who could not be arrested during investigation and was declared proclaimed offender) on 5th December,2005 and then again after some days and one day in Janyary,2006 she was raped by all the five discharged accused. Other accused, including her mother, had abetted the commission of rape upon her and had also extended threats to her. The prosecutrix had also claimed in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. that her parents were in fact running a sex racket and her brother was very much aware of that racket in which couples used to come from outside Delhi and they used to indulge in spouse swapping and in that racket Ashwani(discharged accused) and his wife Mamta(who has been charged) were also involved and her parents wanted her(the prosecutrix) also to join them in that business.

(3.) FROM these observations of the learned trial Judge it is clear that the version of the prosecutrix that she was raped on three occasions out of which twice she was raped by her father singly and then gang raped by other persons has not been found to be doubtful and that is why a charge under Section 376 read with 109 IPC has been ordered to be framed against the alleged abettors. However, the allegations against the five male accused persons who had allegedly gang raped her have been found by the trial Court to be doubtful and so they have been discharged.