Delhi HC Slams State For Initiating Frivolous Appeal Against Acquittal In Attempt To Rape Case
It would definitely be of extreme significance to note that none other than the Delhi High Court itself in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled State vs Manpal & Others in CRL.L.P. 519/2019 & CRL.M.A. 36100/2019 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:7829 that was pronounced as recently as on October 8, 2024 has most strongly castigated the Delhi government for initiating frivolous litigation after it tried to challenge an acquittal in an attempt-to-rape case from 2011, despite the complainant admitting during trial that she had filed a false case. It also merits mentioning that the Delhi High Court while most strongly condemning the reprehensible practice of filing frivolous litigation noted that it hinders the judicial system and delays the resolution of genuine cases. It is high time and in such false cases, the woman must be sent to jail and be penalized also so that there is some credible “check and balance” in the filing of cases as men’s reputation and mental peace goes for a toss and if convicted then whole life becomes hell for just no fault of his! This must definitely end forthwith! It also merits just no reiteration whatsoever that the State which at its whims and fancies initiates frivolous appeals must also be hugely penalized so that it acts as a “potent deterrent” which most unfortunately we have not seen in last nearly 80 years of independence which is ostensibly truly incomprehensible and so also it can be said without an iota of doubt even most disgusting indeed!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present petition is filed seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.04.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Special Fast Track Court, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58060/16 arising out of FIR No. 71/11 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, for offences under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 2 that, “The learned ASJ, by impugned judgment, had acquitted the respondents.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on facts of the case that, “The FIR in the present case was lodged following information about a quarrel on Street No. 4, Lal Bagh. The victim/prosecutrix and her mother were taken to the police station where their statements were recorded. The prosecutrix stated that her mother worked as a maid in several houses, and on 21.03.2011, when her parents were away at work, she and her younger brother were at home. Around 8:00 p.m., while retrieving a mattress from the rooftop, the prosecutrix alleged that Respondent No. 1, the landlord’s son, grabbed her and took her to a hut on the roof, and attempted to commit rape upon her and fled when an alarm was raised. The prosecutrix, then went downstairs and asked her younger brother to call their elder sister, who lived nearby. After disclosing the incident to her sister, they informed their parents.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 341/323/354/376/511 of the IPC against Respondent No. 1 and separate charges under Sections 341/323/34 of the IPC were framed against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother and sister respectively, of Respondent No. 1.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 5 disclosing that, “15 prosecution witnesses were examined before the Trial Court and the learned ASJ noted that the prosecutrix was examined-in-chief and cross-examined in part on 27.11.2012. In her examination-in-chief, she supported the case of the prosecution but in the cross-examination on the same day, she deposed that the dispute took place between her family and the family of the accused in regard to vacating the premises. On being asked by the learned Trial Court, she replied that false complaint was filed against the accused persons.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “It was noted that the real dispute between the parties was with regard to the rent and the prosecutrix had stated that the accused/Respondent No.1 had not attempted to rape her.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench points out in para 9 that, “The learned ASJ also noted that the DD entry pursuant to a PCR call, only mentions that there was a quarrel and no allegation of attempt to rape was ever made.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 11 that, “The learned ASJ took note of the affidavits filed by the prosecutrix and her mother which were also exhibited as Ex.PW10/DA and Ex.PW12/DB, wherein the deponents being the prosecutrix and her mother had deposed that the dispute was in regard to the rent and a false complaint was filed. Considering the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents.”
Quite significantly, the Bench reveals in para 14 that, “It is also important to note that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, in the proceedings before the Rohini Courts, initially opined that the case was not suitable for appeal to the High Court. The Director of Prosecution also shared this view, concluding that the case did not warrant an appeal to the High Court.”
Notably, the Bench points out in para 15 that, “However, it appears that the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs later proposed filing an appeal.”
Most astonishingly, the Bench very rightly while taking potshots at State minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms in para 16 that, “Based on the facts outlined above, no flaws are apparent in the impugned judgment. This Court is unable to understand the reasoning behind the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs recommending an appeal in this case.”
It would be worthwhile to mention that the Bench notes in para 19 that, “The filing of frivolous cases has a spiral effect on other litigations which are waiting for their turn to be heard before the Courts.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 20 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “Although the present case clearly qualifies as one where costs should be imposed on the prosecution for filing a frivolous appeal, this Court has chosen to refrain from passing such an order with a direction to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs to exercise greater vigilance and sensitivity in deciding which cases to prosecute. The misuse of the legal process through frivolous litigation wastes judicial time and resources, and the Department must ensure that only meritorious cases are brought before the Court, avoiding unnecessary burden on the judicial system.”
Most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, the Bench then propounds in para 21 that, “The filing of frivolous cases has a far-reaching, detrimental impact on the legal system. It not only clogs the Courts with unnecessary litigation but also delays the hearing of genuine cases that are patiently awaiting their turn to be addressed. Such delays undermine the efficiency of the judiciary, causing distress to litigants. Therefore, it is imperative that the prosecution and legal departments exercise due diligence before initiating cases, in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and ensure timely justice for those with legitimate grievances.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 22 that, “The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 23 that, “A copy of this order be sent to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs for information.”
In conclusion, it must be underscored most vocally that there must be stringent punishment even for women if she dares to lodge false cases whether of rape or dowry or in any other case which must include a fixed jail term and so also monetary compensation to the affected men or boy! When women can be punished for theft, murder and all other crimes then why the hell should she ever be given a blank cheque free to level false allegations against as many men as she likes and yet escape without facing any punishment under the law? This is what I find most reprehensible!
This is exactly what even the revised new penal laws most shockingly and most distressingly have just failed to insert which is certainly a cause of grave concern which cannot be just brushed aside any longer! To say the very least, Centre now without any more further delay most promptly must amend even the new penal laws and consensual sex should not be considered rape so that those who level false allegations are most strictly punished and sent behind bars! It must be ensured that the brazen, brutal, blind and baseless abuse of penal laws against men and boys are most fiercely combated, checked and finally crushed to a very large extent as much as possible if not completely as ideally it should be! No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
