Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 376, 377, 341, 342, 493, 495, 201, 323, 325, 354D, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Judgement by: High Court of Delhi
Judge/Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Facts
The petitioner-prosecutrix alleged that Respondent No. 2 deceived her about his identity and religion, coerced her into marriage in 2015, and subjected her to continuous sexual exploitation using blackmail involving nude photographs. She lodged an FIR after an eleven-year relationship. The Sessions Court discharged the respondents finding the relationship was consensual.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 376, 377, 341, 342, 493, 495,, 323, 325, 354D, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Issues raised
- Whether the Sessions Court exceeded permissible scrutiny at the charge-framing stage.
- Whether evidence sufficed for prima facie charges of rape, deceitful marriage, and criminal intimidation.
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that the discharge order was perverse; reliance on unproved defence documents was improper and the allegations of exploitation through blackmail warranted trial. The Respondents argued that the relationship was consensual for over a decade; the Nikah was verified; official documents and witnesses confirmed cohabitation as husband and wife.
Judgement
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the discharge. It held that verified documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrated a consensual relationship, negating allegations of deceit or coercion.
Click here to VIEW full judgement.
