STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has assailed order dtd. 10/10/2017 of the learned trial court limited to the extent of discharging the accused persons (respondents herein) of offence under Sec. 323/342 IPC in case FIR No. 430/2016 of PS New Ashok Nagar. I have heard learned APP for State and learned counsel for respondents, who took me through the digitized record of the trial court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as unfolded from the FIR registered on the statement of prosecutrix is as follows. The prosecutrix studied till 5th standard and had been working as a receptionist in a company owned by the present respondent no. 1. In the said company, respondent no.2 also was working. Respondent no. 2 is wife of respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 entrapped the prosecutrix with his sweet talk and convinced her that he would get married with her after getting his marriage with respondent no. 2 dissolved by way of decree of divorce. On the pretext of getting married, respondent no. 1 developed physical relations with prosecutrix repeatedly. On 27/7/2016 when the prosecutrix went to the house of respondents in order to discuss her marriage with respondent no. 1, both respondents started beating her up and confined her in their home. After threatening to get her booked in some false case, respondents called the PCR, which took all of them to the police station. At the police station on the basis of above narration by the prosecutrix, the FIR was registered for offence under Sec. 376/377 IPC. After investigation, the local police filed chargesheet against the respondents for offences under Sec. 376/377/323/342/34 IPC and 6 POCSO Act.

(3.) After committal of the chargesheet, the learned trial court heard both sides on the issue of charge. By way of the order impugned in the present case, learned trial court held that charge for offence under Sec. 376(2)/377 IPC and Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act was made out against respondent no.1 and accordingly, charge was framed against him. But, as regards respondent no. 2, the trial court held that no offence at all was made out, so she was discharged. Hence, the present revision petition, assailing the discharge of the respondents qua offences under Sec. 342 and 323 IPC.