SUBRATO GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 31-3-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2010 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge in Parsudih P.S. Case No. 188 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.No. 2609 of 2009 was rejected and a prima facie case was found against the petitioner under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(I) (XII) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was called upon to stand charged by the said order.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant-O.P.No. 2 Monika Bishwas by presenting a written report before Parsudih Police Station (East Singhbhum) stated that she was posted as Head Ticket Collector at Jharsuguda Railway Station and she was residing there in Qaurter No. A22/3 Railway Colony, Jharsuguda within the district of Jharsuguda (Orissa). In the year 2005 he came in contact with Subrato Ghosh, who was Operating Railway Employee at Tatanagar Railway Station having his Flat No. B/3, Amba Apartment, Prathamnagar, Parsudih, Jamshed-pur and after some time he proposed before her for marriage and pursuant to that by giving alurement of marriage, he established bodily relation with her at several occasions. He called her at several occasions at his residence situated at Parsudih and there also he established sexual relation. She alleged that whenever she had been putting pressure for marriage after establishing sex, the petitioner flately refused to marry her and started extending threat that he would do away her life. Finally, she stated that on 03.10.2009 she was asked by him to come to his residence to have talk with regard to their marriage but when she visited his house, he again established physical relationship and again refused to marry her. On the basis of the written report, Parsudih P.S. Case No. 188 of 2009 was lodged against the petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on 10-10-2009.

(3.) MR . Kumar further submitted that in the given facts and circumstances, no offence of rape defined under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It was nowhere alleged that bodily relationship was established against her will and without consent of the informant, or her consent was obtained in fear of death, or of hurt. It was not the case that she succumbed to the demand of sex believing herself to be lawfully married to the petitioner or that the consent was given by reason of unsoundness of mind or under influence of intoxication.