Monthly Archives: March 2017

Consensual sex is not rape. State vs . Mahesh Chand And Anr on 29 March, 2017

Sir Ji ! I had #sex with this man since 2009. Till 2013 I had #sex on #several occasions. Then I went away with him on my own #free #will and got #married under Arya Samaj marriage in 2013, (as per my own #statement to police) … But Now I want to file Rape case on him !!

 

====================

 

IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE (SFTC), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.

SC No.441556/2016

State vs. Mahesh Chand and anr

FIR No. 249/2016

U/s. 493/495/376/377/506/34 IPC

P.S. Palam Village

29.03.2017

ORDER ON CHARGE (Oral) :

  1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.01.2009 prosecutrix ‘X’ (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) met accused Mahesh Chand through her friend. They became friends and started meeting each other. One day in March 2009 when the prosecutrix was all alone in her house, accused came there and committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage. He also filmed a video of the said act and, thereafter, started threatening her that he would make the said obscene video public. On the pretext of marriage, accused used to have physical relations with her. On 10.06.2013 the accused married her at Arya Samaj Mandir, Dwarka, New Delhi (address withheld). On 21.06.2013 both the accused took her to Manesar, Gurgaon where the prosecutrix was kept in illegal confinement for nine days and was raped by accused Mahesh State v. Mahesh Chand anr. Page 1 of 8 (FIR No.249/2016 PS Palam Village) Chand. During the said period co­accused Sanjay also attempted to rape her. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 29.06.2013 they were apprehended by the police as a missing complaint was lodged by her family.
  2. On the complaint of the prosecutrix, the present FIR was registered on 15.06.2016 for commission of offences punishable u/ss 498A/494/495/376/377/506 IPC.

  3. During investigation prosecutrix was medically examined at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi on 16.06.2016. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded by Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi on 17.06.2016. The statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge­sheet was filed against the accused Mahesh Chand for commission of offences under Sections 493/495/376/377/506 IPC and against accused Sanjay for commission of offences under Sections 376/377/506/34 IPC.

  4. I have heard Ms. Satwinder Kaur, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Ajay Raghav, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused.

  5. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that accused have been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay in lodging the FIR. According to him, if a grown up girl has consented to sexual intercourse State v. Mahesh Chand anr. Page 2 of 8 (FIR No.249/2016 PS Palam Village) with a person who held out false promise to marry her, it would not amount to consenting under any misconception of fact u/s 90 IPC and, as such, no offence of rape can be said to have been committed. It is contended that no prima facie case for the alleged offences is made out against the accused and they are liable to be discharged.

  6. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has contended that there is sufficient material on record for framing charges against the accused.

  7. I have gone through the case file. The FIR in criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. It is well settled proposition of law that a mere delay itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution. The effect of delay is to be understood in the light of the plausibility of the explanation forthcoming and must depend for consideration on all the facts and circumstances of a given case. Though not referred to or relied upon, in case of Dilawar v. State of Delhi, 2007 Cri.LJ 4709, it has been held by the Apex Court that in criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation State v. Mahesh Chand anr. Page 3 of 8 (FIR No.249/2016 PS Palam Village) upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications.

  8. The delay of one or two days in lodging the FIR may be bonafide, reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of a given case. However, in the present case there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.

  9. In her complaint on which present FIR was lodged it is alleged that in March 2009 accused Mahesh Chand committed rape upon the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. No specific dates and time have been mentioned by the prosecutrix in the said complaint from March 2009 till 21.06.2013 when the accused Mahesh Chand committed rape upon her. This relationship continued for sufficient duration and at no stage she raised alarm/hue and cry or lodged report with the police against alleged rape. Even after the initial incident in March 2009 she continued to have sexual relations with him on several occasions without demur and at no stage prosecutrix lodged report about his conduct and behaviour. The family members of the prosecutrix had lodged a missing report regarding her on 21.06.2013. At that time prosecutrix made a statement to the SHO PS Palam Village stating therein that she went with accused Mahesh of her own free will. Accused Mahesh married the prosecutrix on 10.06.2013 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi (address withheld). As per statement under section 164 Cr. P.C., prosecutrix came to know that accused Mahesh Chand was already married when she stayed with him at Manesar, Gurgaon. However, she kept mum and she did not lodge any complaint against him. Rather she stated to police that she went with him of her own free will. Prosecutrix concealed the factum of her marriage with accused Mahesh Chand on 10.06.2013 from her parents/relatives and did not make it public. She was the mature enough to fully understand as to what was happening between the two. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it was an act of promiscuity on the part of the prosecutrix and not an act induced by misconception of fact. Though not referred to or relied upon, in similar circumstances, in judgment – Gaurav Maggo Crl. A. No.369/2014, decided by High Court of Delhi on 29.5.2015, it has been held as under : “There is nothing in her evidence to demonstrate that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the act which she consented to. Her consent for physical relations (if any) was an act of conscious reason. If a fully grown up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise to marry and continues to indulge in such activity for long, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact.”

  10. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 16.06.2016. Doctor has written on the MLC that she did not find any external injury mark on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of the examination. There is no medical evidence to support the version of the prosecutrix that she was raped as she was taken to the hospital after considerable delay. Accused Mahesh Chand was also medically examined by doctor on 30.09.2016 at DDU Hospital, New Delhi which was a sheer formality.

  11. It is the settled law that order framing the charges does substantially affect the persons and the Court must not automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecution authorities, by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173 Cr.PC, consider it proper to institute the case.

  12. Though not referred to or relied upon, it has been observed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in judgment – Sunder Singh v. State of M.P., Cr.R No.607/2013 decided on 3.9.2013 as under : “42. The prosecution, having regard to the right of an accused to have a fair investigation, fair inquiry and fair trial as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot at any stage be deprived of taking advantage of the materials which the prosecution itself have placed on record. If upon perusal of the entire materials on record, the court arrives at an opinion that two views are possible, charges can be framed, but if only one and one view is possible to be taken favouring the accused, the court shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to face a trial. Please see: State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath (1996) 4 SCC 659. In the case at hand, if the Court allowed to asking applicant face the trial on above discussed evidence, definitely it will amount to put the applicant for harassment.”

  13. Though not referred to or relied upon, in judgment­ Jayanti Rani Panda v. State of W.B., 1984 Crl. Law Journal 1535 it has been held that if a grown up girl has consented to sexual intercourse with a person who held out false promise to marry her it would not amount to consenting under any misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC and sexual intercourse by the man under these circumstance would not be an offence of rape as defined in Section 375 IPC. Though not referred to or relied upon, in similar circumstances, in judgment ­ State v. Anupam Bhardwaj, Criminal Revision P. No. 4/2017, decided on 3.1.2017, our High Court of Delhi speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi has upheld the order of the trial court discharging the accused in a rape case.

  14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, after sifting and weighing the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, I am of the opinion that the materials placed before the Court do not disclose the grave suspicion against the accused Mahesh Chand and Sanjay for framing charge against them for committing offences punishable under Sections 376 and 376/511 IPC respectively. Accordingly, they are discharged for the said offences. All other offences are triable by the court of Ld. M.M. Accused are directed to appear before Ld. M.M. today at 12.30 pm. Ld. M.M. shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

Announced today in open court on 29.3.2017.
(PRAVEEN KUMAR)
Addl. Sessions Judge (SFTC) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

Justice Karnan hits back at SC, says targeted because he’s Dalit | india-news | Hindustan Times

Justice Karnan hits back at SC, says targeted because he’s Dalit

CS Karnan
The Supreme Court had issued a warrant order on Friday, directing Karnan’s presence on March31 after the judge ignored earlier summons. (PTI)
Updated: Mar 11, 2017 06:48 IST
By HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times, Kolkata

Calcutta high court justice C S Karnan hit back at the Supreme Court on Friday, calling its warrant against him “unconstitutional” and “an attempt to ruin” his life as he was a Dalit.

“I am being targeted as I am a Dalit. This is a caste issue. The order has been deliberately issued against me. This is an attempt to ruin my life. The warrant is unconstitutional,” Karnan told the media at a hurriedly organised press conference at his residence in New Town.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar had issued the warrant order earlier in the day, directing Karnan’s presence on March 31 after the judge ignored earlier summons in connection with contempt proceedings initiated against him for accusing several judges of the Madras high court, where he had earlier served, and an SC judge of corruption, nepotism and casteism.

The SC said the warrant should be executed through West Bengal director general of police.

Justice Karnan also signed an order in front of reporters, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to “register, investigate and file a report before the appropriate court of law under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of any court….”

In the same order, he also said: “I further direct the secretary generals of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha to place the entire facts of the case before the Speaker for appropriate inquiry under the Judges’ Enquiry Act.”

http://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/calcutta-hc-judge-cs-karnan-says-sc-warrant-against-him-unconstitutional-motivated/story-UonAYbnGmcgsscoJ9J8m2M.html

Arrest me, imprison me, Karnan dares SC – The Hindu

NATIONAL Arrest me, imprison me, Karnan dares SC
Karnan1
Krishnadas Rajagopal
NEW DELHI: MARCH 31, 2017 13:49 IST
UPDATED: APRIL 01, 2017 00:59 IST
Justice Karnan accuses the Supreme Court of robbing him of dignity.

In an openly confrontational hearing, controversial Calcutta High Court judge, Justice C.S. Karnan on Friday challenged a seven judge Bench of the Supreme Court to “arrest and put him in jail” for contempt.

Countering an order of the Bench led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar to file an affidavit explaining his disparaging remarks and allegations of corruption against fellow High Courts and Supreme Court judges, Justice Karnan accused the Bench of robbing him of his mental and physical balance and his dignity by stripping him of his judicial and administrative powers as a High Court judge.

Justice Karnan was appearing for the first time before the Bench in the contempt action against him. He had refused to appear before it despite repeated notice from the apex court summoning him. Finally, the court had to issue a bailable warrant against him, which was served on him by a police team led by the West Bengal Director General of Police.

Justice Karnan, appearing for himself in a packed courtroom, shouted at the Bench that he will not come before it again.

“Had I not come today, you would have issued non-bailable warrant against me… What way am I an offender or an anti-social element or a terrorist for you… you should protect my dignity, my personal life has been destroyed, police entered my colony and people are watching me,” Justice Karnan submitted.

“We issued bailable warrants against you Mr. Karnan not because you were an accused but because you did not enter procedure. You are not a terrorist,” Chief Justice Khehar responded.

When the court gave Justice Karnan the choice between rendering an unconditional apology for his scurrilous letters and accusations against the judiciary, Justice Karnan rebutted saying they should first restore his powers as a judge in order for him to be in a position to prove his allegations.

The allegations of Justice Karnan had prompted the contempt action — the first in the court’s history against a sitting High Court judge.

Finally, after a 45-minute hearing, Chief Justice Khehar recorded that Justice Karnan was replying neither coherently nor affirmatively about the accusations he had made, thus giving him an option to pen them down in an affidavit to be filed in the next four weeks.

The court refused his plea to restore his judicial and administrative duties.

“I have lost my physical and mental balance… If you do not restore my work, you can very well now impose any punishment you want,” Justice Karnan said.

“If you feel you are not mentally fit to respond to us in an affidavit, you give us a medical certificate,” Chief Justice Khehar replied.

“Medical certificate is not required. You have disturbed me like anything,” Justice Karnan told the Bench.

The hearing started with Justice Karnan explaining that his “fight is not against judiciary or for personal gains”.

“My fight is against corruption,” Justice Karnan submitted, handing over a letter concerning allegations against 20 judges to the Bench.

“You think about what you want to say. If you want legal help, I suggest you take legal advice. You should be properly prepared,” Justice Jasti Chelameswar asked.

“If you unconditionally apologise, this matter will take a different course. If you choose to accuse ‘a’ or ‘y’, the matter will be adjudicated,” Justice Dipak Misra observed.

The Bench also comprised Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, P.C. Ghose and Kurian Joseph.

When the Chief Justice asked Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi whether Justice Karnan was in a position to comprehend his predicament, he said there was no question of “non-comprehension” here.

“This gentleman has appeared before My Lords and affirmed and again affirmed that he will continue to make insinuations till the judicial institution is damned. He says ‘I will render unconditional apology if I have committed contempt’. Apology for contempt cannot be conditional,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.

×
Meanwhile, in a separate petition filed by Madras HC, Justice Karnan said he has returned his official bungalow.

The next hearing is on May 1, 2017.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/arrest-and-put-me-in-jail-karnan-to-sc/article17749689.ece

“Restore my judicial work or punish me right away”, Karnan J: The drama as it unfolded in court

 
Murali Krishnan March 31, 2017
“Restore my judicial work or punish me right away”, Karnan J: The drama as it unfolded in court

Justice Karnan demands
The Chief Justice of India’s Court today witnessed something it had never seen before. Justice Karnan, a sitting judge of one of the most prominent High Courts in the country, stood before a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court and argued in person in a contempt case against him.

Even as the case remained inconclusive, the hearing today threw up submissions and counters which were certainly interesting.

Here is how the drama unfolded:

10.10 am.

There was a big crowd outside the Court of the Chief Justice of India. Lawyers and journalists all gathered in anticipation of a likely non-bailable warrant in case the judge does not appear.

10.20 am.

Reports pour in of Justice Karnan having arrived at the court.

10.25 am.

Justice Karnan enters courtroom.

10.30 am

Hearing commences.

Justice Karnan had a calm demeanour about him as he began his submissions. He said that his actions were aimed at the general welfare of the public and that he was not fighting against the judiciary. He cited various complaints made by him against different people including judges, which were never pursued or investigated. He said,

“I have not committed any mistake. I am not fighting the judiciary.”

The Court, however, posed to him the question whether he stands by the allegations made by him in his letter to the Prime Minister.

“Are you reiterating whatever you have stated in your letter? Think carefully and answer. It you want time to think, we can allow you the same.”

Karnan J, however, did not answer the question. He instead responded that if a complaint is made by someone, that complaint has to be disposed of on merits.

He also said that the Court had withdrawn his judicial work without giving him the opportunity of being heard, thus denying him natural justice. He said,

“Your lordships initiated contempt case against me. Then without hearing me, you withdrew judicial work from me. It is a violation of natural justice.”

He went on state that he has “suffered a lot” in the past two months.

The Court felt that Justice Karnan was going on a different tangent and not answering the questions posed to him. CJI Khehar remarked,

“It might not be intentional, but his response is not to our question.”

However, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi did not agree.

“He has done everything fully comprehending what he was doing. Right from the time allegations were first made to affirming and re-affirming the same I don’t think there was any case of non-comprehension. He went on naming the judges, thus damning the judges and the institution.”

This led to an emotional appeal by Justice Karnan.

“I am not a terrorist or an anti-social element. All I did was make a complaint to the Prime Minister against 20 judges. Instead of inquiring into it, your lordships initiated contempt against me and withdrew my judicial work. I have been humiliated and insulted.

I am also holding a Constitutional office. With police coming to my residence, the insult is not just to me but to the entire judiciary.”

Justice Khehar responded by stating that the bailable warrant was issued not because Karnan J was a terrorist but because he failed to appear in court despite notice being issued.

“That is the procedure followed by this Court”, said Khehar J.

The court then proceeded to dictate the following order:

“Justice CS Karnan has entered appearance in-person. He was asked whether he would like to withdraw allegations made by him against the judges.

He has not responded in any affirmative manner. We can therefore proceed only after getting his written submissions. We, therefore, direct Justice Karnan to file his written submission within four weeks.”

The Court also declined his request to restore his judicial work in the interim.

Outburst: “Restore judicial work or punish me right away”

In a show of defiance, Karnan J. vociferously argued that the Court should either restore his judicial work or punish him right away.

“If my judicial work is not restored, I will not make any submissions, I will not appear before Your Lordships. Your Lordships can impose any punishment right away. I am mentally disturbed because you withdrew my judicial work”, he said.

“If you feel that you are not mentally prepared to respond then please produce a medical certificate”, shot back CJI Khehar.

The Bench then rose even as Karnan J. continued to protest vociferously.

Related Articles

My Lords: Not Above the Law
My Lords: Not Above the Law
Karnan J. contempt: SC issues notice, withdraws judicial and administrative work from judge [Read order]
Karnan J. contempt: SC issues notice, withdraws judicial and administrative work from judge

http://barandbench.com/restore-judicial-work-karnan-j/