While acting in the interest of justice and taking the right decision at the right moment, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shiv Pratap Singh Rana vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr in Shiv Pratap Singh Rana vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 481 that was pronounced as recently as on July 8, 2024 has in the fitness of things discharged a man from a case of repeated rape after noting that the relationship with the woman was consensual and continued for two years. It is high time and the penal laws must be definitely amended now without any more further delay and if a woman with her consensus if has relationship with a men for years should not be later allowed to file rape charges against men. Such blatant misuse of penal laws against men must end forthwith for which laws must be amended suitably in this direction.
We must note that in this leading case, the FIR was lodged only after talks between the two families pertaining to marriage did not materialize. We see this happening similarly in so many similar such cases which definitely necessitates prompt amendment in the penal laws to check, combat and crush misuse of penal laws by women which cannot be justified somehow or anyhow on one pretext or the other! No denying it!
It must be borne in mind that the Apex Court itself concluded that, “Thus, there is hardly any possibility of convicting the appellant. In fact, it is not even a case that can stand trial. It appears to be a case of consensual relationship that deteriorated, leading to the FIR.” We thus see that in these circumstances, the Apex Court held that compelling the appellant to face a criminal trial based on these materials would be an abuse of the court’s process, with the trial’s result being a foregone conclusion. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan for a Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior (the ‘High Court’ hereinafter) dismissing Criminal Revision No. 2288 of 2019 filed by the appellant. The aforesaid criminal revision petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court assailing the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (‘Sessions Judge’ hereinafter) in Sessions Trial No. 505 of 2018 whereby charges under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge filed by the appellant was rejected.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while dwelling on prosecution case that, “The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix had lodged a first information report (FIR) on 06.09.2018 alleging that in the year 2016, the accused (appellant herein) used to show photographs of hers and telling her to come to Gwalior with him otherwise her photographs would be uploaded on Whatsapp. It was due to fear that she came to Gwalior alongwith the appellant by train from Dabra. One boy from Anupam Nagar came to the railway station to receive her. On his motorbike, the prosecutrix and the appellant went to Anupam Nagar city centre where the appellant was living in rented premises. There, the appellant forcefully committed wrongful act on her. Thereafter, the appellant forcefully took the signature of the prosecutrix on an affidavit. It was mentioned in the affidavit that the prosecutrix would live with the appellant for life. After that she came to Dabra with the appellant and went home. Appellant used to tell her again and again about having a relationship. He told her that he would marry her after the marriage of his brother. But after the marriage of his brother when the prosecutrix broached the topic of marriage, the appellant told her that his brother had received Rs. 15 lakhs in marriage; if her family would give Rs. 15 lakhs then only he would marry her, otherwise not. Her parents went to the residence of the appellant with a marriage proposal but his family members turned out the proposal. In the FIR, it was alleged that the appellant while having relationship with the prosecutrix took money from her on various occasions totalling Rs. 90,000/-; besides jewellery were also taken. When the appellant started threatening the prosecutrix, she filed the FIR before the Vishwavidhyalaya Police Station, District Gwalior.”
As we see, the Bench then states in para 3 that, “The FIR was registered as Crime No. 401 of 2018 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “Police carried out the investigation during the course of which statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was recorded on 11.09.2018. That apart, statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded on 12.09.2018 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that, “Appellant filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge seeking his discharge. By the order dated 24.04.2019, the Sessions Judge took the view that prima-facie the chargesheet discloses sufficient evidence to frame charge against the appellant. In such circumstances, the accused (appellant) could not be discharged from the trial for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. Consequently, the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.”
What’s more, the Bench discloses in para 6 that, “Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge, appellant filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The said petition was registered as Criminal Revision No. 2288 of 2019. By the judgment and order dated 03.10.2019, the High Court took the view that trial needs to be conducted for unearthing the truth and that no case for interference was made out. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.”
As things stands, the Bench reveals in para 7 that, “Assailing the aforesaid decision of the High Court, appellant preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11671 of 2019 before this Court. By order dated 07.01.2020, this Court issued notice and passed an interim order staying further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 505 of 2018 pending before the Sessions Judge. Subsequently by order dated 12.05.2023, this Court granted leave and directed continuance of the interim order during the pendency of the criminal appeal, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023.”
Quite significantly, the Bench minces absolutely just no words to hold indubitably in para 16 that, “From a perusal and comparison of the two statements of the prosecutrix, one before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that too recorded within a span of 24 hours, what is noticeable is that not only are the statements contradictory in themselves, those are contradictory to each other as well. The fact that the appellant had lodged the FIR two years after the alleged incident is itself suggestive of the consensual nature of the relationship which had gone sour. It is inconceivable that the prosecutrix, who was about 22 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, would accompany the appellant to a temple if she was being threatened by the appellant. She was a major and, therefore, fully conscious of the consequences of her own actions. It is not the case of the prosecutrix that the appellant had forced her to have bath under the waterfall and thereafter took her photographs. The act of the prosecutrix having bath under the waterfall and changing her clothes thereafter in the company of the appellant virtually rules out any threat or coercion by the appellant on the prosecutrix.”
It cannot be just glossed over that the Bench then points out in para 17 that, “In the course of the hearing, the Bench had put a pointed query to learned counsel for the State as to whether the mobile phone of the appellant or the photographs allegedly taken by the appellant of the prosecutrix while she was bathing and changing clothes were recovered to which the reply on instructions was that those were neither recovered nor seized. Further, the stamp paper dated 28.09.2016 as well as the cheque dated 16.06.2017 have not been seized. The jewellery allegedly given by the prosecutrix to the appellant has also not been seized. The stamp paper dated 07.07.2017 has not been seized. In the absence of such materials, it would be virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove the charges of rape and intimidation against the appellant.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 19 that, “Having regard to the above and in the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant cannot be said to be against her will and without her consent. On the basis of the available materials, no case of rape or of criminal intimidation is made out.”
Most significantly, the Bench postulates in para 24 propounding that, “Learned counsel for respondents had relied heavily on the expression “misconception of fact”. However, according to us, there is no misconception of fact here. Right from the inception, it is the case of the prosecution that while the appellant was insisting on having a relationship with the prosecutrix, the later had turned down the same on the ground that appellant was the friend of her younger brother and a distant relative of her jijaji. That apart, according to the prosecutrix, the appellant was younger to her. Nonetheless, the prosecutrix had accompanied the appellant to a temple, where she had voluntarily taken bath under a waterfall. Her allegation that appellant had surreptitiously taken photographs of her while she was bathing and later on changing clothes and was blackmailing her with such photographs remain unfounded in the absence of seizure of such photographs or the mobile phone on which such photographs were taken by the appellant. If, indeed, she was under some kind of threat from the appellant, it defies any logic, when the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant to Gwalior from Dabra, a journey which they had made together by train. On reaching Gwalior, she accompanied the appellant on a scooter to a rented premises at Anupam Nagar, where she alleged that appellant had forced himself upon her. But she did not raise any alarm or hue and cry at any point of time. Rather, she returned back to Dabra alongwith the appellant. The relationship did not terminate there. It continued even thereafter. It is the case of the prosecutrix herself that at one point of time the family members of the two had met to discuss about their marriage but nothing final could be reached regarding their marriage. It was only thereafter that the FIR was lodged. As already pointed out above, neither the affidavit nor stamp papers have been recovered or seized by the police; so also the jewellery. The alleged cheque of the prosecutrix’s mother given to the appellant or the bank statement to indicate transfer of such money have not been gathered by the police. In the absence of such materials, the entire sub-stratum of the prosecutrix’s case collapses. Thus, there is hardly any possibility of conviction of the appellant. As a matter of fact, it is not even a case which can stand trial. It appears to be a case of a consensual relationship which had gone sour leading to lodging of FIR. In the circumstances, Court is of the view that compelling the appellant to face the criminal trial on these materials would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, result of the trial being a foregone conclusion.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 25 that, “From the factual matrix of the case, the following relevant features can be culled out:
(i) the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was of a consensual nature;
(ii) the parties were in a relationship for a period of almost two years; and
(iii) though there were talks between the parties and their family members regarding marriage, the same did not fructify leading to lodging of FIR.”
As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 26 that, “That being the position and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if the proceedings are terminated at this stage itself. Consequently, impugned order of the High Court dated 03.10.2019 and the order of the Sessions Judge dated 24.04.2019 are hereby set aside and quashed.”
Further, the Bench directs in para 27 that, “Resultantly, proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 505/2018, pending before the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, are hereby quashed.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 28 that, “Consequently, the appeal is allowed.”
In a nutshell, it is high time and now women must be definitely made totally accountable for filing of false cases whether it is for rape or for dowry charges or for any other charges just like any other individual and should not be allowed to get away scot free even after making the life of a men miserable by levelling false charges for various offences. We see how in this leading case the men had to suffer so much and after getting no relief from the Gwalior District Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court finally got justice from the Apex Court. We thus see that the Apex Court in this leading case found just no difficulty in concluding reasonably that it appeared to be a case of a consensual relationship which had gone sour leading to the lodging of the FIR. It is thus a no-brainer that the Apex Court very rightly quashed the rape case that had been lodged against the appellant in this leading case. There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
