X Vs. STATE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petitions have been preferred one by the victim 'X' (changed name) and the other by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 30.08.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.441333/2016 emanating from FIR No.157/2016 registered under Sections 376 / 506 IPC at Police Station Dwarka (South) whereby the respondent was discharged of the offences.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned Senior counsel for the victim urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the case in its proper and true perspective. The trial court fell into grave error in not appreciating that the victim's consent to have physical relations with the respondent was under misconception of facts. The respondent had given false assurance to the prosecutrix that he would marry her. Subsequently, the respondent did not fulfill the promise to marry her; he had no intention from the very inception to perform marriage with 'X' and obtained her consent to sexual intercourse by deceit. Presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act was ignored for no sound reasons. The respondent had even taken 'X' to Golden Temple and had performed marriage ceremony there. There was credible evidence on record to prove that the prosecutrix was criminally intimidated and after taking undue advantage of her situation whereby she had a disturbed marriage with her previous husband which led to divorce, she was allured to have physical relation on the false promise to marry. Reliance has been placed on Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs.State of Bihar (2005) SC 203; Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors vs.State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr .(2008) 2 SCC 561; State of Uttar Pradesh vs.Naushad (2013) 16 SCC 651; Karthi @ Karthick vs.State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2013) 12 SCC 710; Deepak Gulati vs.State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675.

(3.) Admitted position is that the prosecutrix was previously married to Lt.Col.Aveek Day on 17.04.2003 and had a child aged around 9 years out of the said wedlock. She was aged 22 years of age at the time of her first marriage. Relations between the prosecutrix and her previous husband Aveek Day became strained. They sought divorce by mutual consent and first motion petition was filed in February, 2014. The said marriage came to an end finally on 25.08.2014 by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is further relevant to note that the respondent too was a married man and the said marriage was subsisting at the time of lodging of the FIR. Undisputedly, the prosecutrix and the respondent were acquainted with each other. In June, 2013, the prosecutrix with her husband came to Delhi on his posting. There were visiting terms between the two families. Seemingly, intimacy developed between the prosecutrix and the respondent during this period.