Setting aside a trial court order discharging five accused in a rape case, the Delhi High Court has ordered framing of charges against them, observing that the trial court judge had gone much beyond his jurisdiction by going into the evidence against them at the stage of framing of charges.
The Court also dismissed revision petitions filed by four female accused in the case challenging framing of charges of abetting the male accused to commit rape on the victim, a second year commerce student at the time of the commission of crime.
The trial court has charged the victim’s mother with criminally intimidating her daughter against making public the sexual assault on her.
In a complaint lodged with the local police, the victim in 2006 had alleged that her father had raped her twice and later she was gang-raped by five other persons in connivance with her parents who ran a sex racket and wanted her to join it. Her brother was also aware about it, she added.
Counsel for the accused justified the trial court order discharging them of the charge arguing that the prosecutrix had not named them in her complaint to the police. She named them as accused eight months after the incident in her statement given to the police and four months later recorded before a Metropolitan Magistrate.
Countering this argument, Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the names of the accused were there in the FIR and the prosecutrix had later named them in her statement to the police and thereafter before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ordering framing of the charge against the five accused persons, Justice P. K. Bhasin said: “The subsequent statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix claiming the discharged accused also to be the rapists were sufficient to accept the allegations against them at the stage of charge.”
“For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petitions filed against the order of the trial Court discharging the five accused persons are allowed and they are ordered to charged and tried under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the two revision petitions filed by the accused who were ordered to be charged under Sections 376 read with 109 IPC are dismissed,” Justice Bhasin said.
The rape victim and the Delhi police had separately sought framing of the charge against the five accused in revision petitions against the trial court order.
“Trial court judge has gone much beyond his jurisdiction”