Category Archives: conseting live in claims RAPE !!

33 year old neice says 55 year old mama raped her over 2 years !! Mama, a vice Chancellor, is arrested !!

We do NOT know IF this is true. We are forwarding a news item for readers’ thoughts !!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bengaluru private university vice chancellor Madhukar G. Angur held on rape charge

The vice chancellor of a private university here has been arrested for allegedly raping a 33-year-old woman, the police said on Saturday.

 

 

 

 

Bengaluru, Feb 6 (IANS) The vice chancellor of a private university here has been arrested for allegedly raping a 33-year-old woman, the police said on Saturday.  ”We have arrested Madhukar G. Angur on Friday night on a complaint by the victim’s mother, who charged him with sexually abusing her daughter over a period, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Southeast) M.B. Boraingaiah told.  Angur (55), a divorcee, is the vice-chancellor of Alliance University, set up in 2010 at Anekal on the city’s southern outskirts.

“The victim is the accused’s niece, who has been working in the university’s administrative office since 2011. As the complaint is filed by her mother, who is his sister, we are interrogating them and others in the family,” Boralingaiah said.  Based on the written complaint, a first information report (FIR) has been registered against the accused under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Also Read: Man held for raping minor in Goregaon)

According to the complaint, the victim and the accused have been in relationship for a couple of years as Angur had promised to marry her but betrayed.  ”The victim’s mother said her daughter went into depression and is under counselling to recover from the trauma of betrayal and deceit by the accused,” the IPS officer added.  The accused also threatened the victim against complaining to the police or anyone else and blackmailed her mother with threats to “expose” their family.

Modified Date: February 6, 2016 6:46 PM

 

Marriage, 2 kids , love outside marriage and rape !! How India became a country of rapists !!

How a married woman, mother of two found a lover ( outside marriage ), filed a rape case on the lover / acquaintance / live-in and later conveniently claimed that there was no rape as the lover married her. What a colossal waste of official machinery and court time !!!

Court cases speak to us… Many of them tell bizarre tales of deceit of cheating and violence ….

Some like this case, tell us how a woman, motorway from my husband, found a second guy, and officially married him and also filed a fake rape case on him…

In addition to filing this week case she goes on to waste the time of all investigating agencies, and also the time of the court

Finally, for reasons best known to her, ( or probably after forcing the so-called rapist into her second husband ) she turns turtle at the courtroom says that they did not rape !!!

There are thousands of cases like this, where the so-called victim, or the prosecutrix, finally says there is no rape !! After having conveniently married the so-called rapist or after having conveniently taken some other form of satisfaction

Still in India is considered a country of rapists !!

****** case from Indian kanoon website ******

IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Sessions Case Number : 52/2014
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0100992014.

State
versus
Ashok Kumar
Son of Sh. Harlal Singh
Resident of L2 Block, Shop No. 64-A, 40 foota road,
M/Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Permanent address: Village Dhaka ki Dhani, Post Bhoj Nagar,
Distt. Jhujhnu Rajasthan.

First Information Report Number : 240/13
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Under sections: 376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 26.02.2014 the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 25.04.2014
Arguments concluded on : 22.04.2016.
Date of judgment : 22.04.2016.

Appearances: Ms. Madhu Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused on bail.
Ms. Nupur Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel for the accused. ***********************************************************************

JUDGMENT

 

  1. Accused Ashok Kumar has been charge sheeted by the Police Station Uttam Nagar , Delhi for the offence under sections 376/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that accused grew closeness with her taking benefit of the fact that she was having differences with her husband and was living separately from him. She has levelled specific allegations of rape of one date after intoxicating her when she went to his shop for taking medicines. There are allegations of marriage under pressure and blackmailing as well.
  2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.02.2014 and after its committal, the case was assigned to this Court on 25.04.2014.
  3. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 17.10.2014, charge for offences under section 376/328/506/363/366/496/120-B of the IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
  4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1 and her mother as PW2.
  5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the “Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses” have been followed.
  6. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she was married with one Pankaj Vaid and out of wedlock, two children were born. After some time, her husband started beating her after taking liquor and abused her. She filed a complaint under domestic violence against her husband and also for maintenance. She deposed that she has been residing at her matrimonial house with her children till date. She further deposed that accused was having the chemist shop in the same locality from where she used to take medicine of her kids. She says that while the divorce case with her husband was still pending, she married the accused on 12.11.2013. There were quarrels between them on small issues due to temperamental differences. She deposed that the complaint filed by her was typed by a typist of which the contents were not read over to her. She identified her signatures in the complaint. She denied that she was taken for medical examination. She admitted her photographs with the accused and stated categorically that she did not want to say anything against the accused.
  7.  As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
  8.  In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, she has denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-1/A her typed complaint had been read over to her before being filed. She denied that on 02.07.2014, the accused had administered some intoxicating substance to her with intent to commit rape and had raped her thereafter. She denied that after the commission of rape, the accused had shown her an obscene video of her prepared by him and had threatened to kill her and her children, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She denied that after 02.07.14, the accused raped her several times after threatening her that he would upload her video on the Internet. She denied that on 15.11.12, the accused threatened to kidnap her children and to show the video to his family members, if she did not agree to marry her. She denied that she was forced to marry the accused or that her signatures were obtained forcibly or that she was taken to Sikar, Rajasthan. She denied that on 17.11.12, her children were kidnapped by accused or that she was forced to marry the accused on 18.11.12 and to sign the affidavit dated 20.11.2012. She denied that on 11.05.13, she had called her parents and had asked them to follow the directions of accused, they followed the directions as her children were with the accused who had promised to return them afterwards. She denied that accused had given the photographs of her marriage with him to her first husband and was blackmailing her. She admitted that a petition had been filed by the accused for declaration of her marriage with accused as null and void.
  9. The mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 who stated that the marriage of her daughter with her first husband was not going well. She deposed that her daughter had married the accused out of free will in her presence and presence of her husband at Sikar, Rajasthan. After marriage, the prosecutrix and accused had resided at Uttam Nagar. She deposed that she did not want to depose anything against the accused. She was cross- examined by ld. Add. Prosecutor. In her cross examination, she stated that her statement was not recorded by the police as told by her. She stated that she did not tell the police that her daughter had married the accused in Arya Samaj Mandir on 18.11.12. She deposed that she did not say to the police that she had told the accused that her daughter could not marry him as she had not obtained divorce from her earlier husband. She denied having asked her daughter about her children at the time of solemnization of marriage and accused having told her not to worry about her children. She denied that children of her daughter were kidnapped by the accused or the accused had married her after kidnapping her children on 17.11.2012. She denied giving the statement in the court after being won over by the accused.
  10. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by the accused. She has deposed that accused has not committed any offence against her and nor deposed anything incriminating against the accused. She has deposed that she had married with the accused out of her free consent. Her mother also did not speak anything against the accused. In fact, the mother stated that marriage between the prosecutrix and accused was voluntary and was attended by her and her husband.
  11. In these circumstances, as both prosecution witnesses the prosecutrix and her mother, who are the main witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case and more importantly have not assigned any criminal role to the accused not deposing anything incriminating against the accused, the precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself, the most material witness, as well as the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
  12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
  13. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1 & PW-2 her mother, who happen to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:“Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness.”
  14. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
  15. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between “may be true” and must be true” so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilt of an accused, particularly in cases where the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence.
  16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused is guilty of the charged offences. There is no material on record to show that pros- ecutrix had gone to the shop of the accused on 02.07.12 as she had high fever or that the accused had asked her to stay there and had given her some medicines. There is no evidence to suggest that the accused had stopped her under pretext that she may fall down on way. There is nothing in the evidence to show that prosecutrix had fallen unconscious and on regaining consciousness had found the accused committed rape upon her. There is nothing to suggest that at that time, the accused had told her to marry her and to keep her children and to threaten her that in case she made a complaint to the police, he would highlight her video which he had made in the phone. There is nothing in the evidence to show that she was living away from her husband and that accused threatened her that he would tell everything to her husband. The prosecutrix has not uttered that the accused had threatened her that his brother in law was head constable in Delhi Police and that he would manage everything and make her life hell. The prosecutrix has not deposed that accused called her several times thereafter and made physical relations with her after threatening her that he would put her video on the Internet. She has not deposed that being a helpless woman, she for the sake of honour and safety of her minor children agreed to the demands of the accused. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that on 15.01.12, the accused went to the house of prosecutrix and told her that he wanted to marry her and that if she didn’t agree, he would get her children kidnapped. She has also not deposed that accused threatened that he will upload her video because of which she would commit suicide or that he asked her to prepare her parents for the marriage without telling them anything. She has not stated that the accused had kidnapped her son on 17.11.12 and had taken her to the temple where he married her against her will on 18.11.12 or that later, he got prepared an affidavit from the court on 20.11.12 and obtained her forcible signature. She has denied having been taken to Sikar for marriage and her parents being called there. She has not deposed that the accused gave the documents to her husband or that her husband and accused were in conspiracy with each other and had talked with each other.
  17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of rape, kidnapping, intoxication, threatening, forcible obtaining of signatures. There is no evidence of conspiracy between Pankaj and the accused absolutely. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place. She has categorically deposed that she had married the accused out of her free will in presence of her parents.
  18. Consequently, accused is hereby acquitted of all the charges framed against him
  19. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
  20. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
  21. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
  22. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open Court on this 22nd day of April, 2016.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ)

Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)­01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

40yr old DV Protection officer files Rape &Intimdation aftr 2yr relationship! SC tears case & acquits

A 40 year old well informed lady, who is also appointed as a protection officer under DV act in many other cases, claims she had 2 year “relationship” with someone 10 years younger. She claims that one day the younger guy raped her on a promise of marriage !!

Her case is full of holes. But the state (government) fights till the Supreme court (meaning the guys also keeps fighting till there). SC appreciates her age, how informed she was, the two year “relationship” and other holes in her story and the Man is finally acquitted.

The Honorable court elucidates as follows “….The evidence as a whole including FIR, testimony of prosecutrix and MLC report prepared by medical practitioner clearly indicate that the story of prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her is concocted and not believable. In fact, the said act of the Appellant seems to be consensual in nature.

The trial court has rightly held thus:

“…..23. If the story set up by the prosecutrix herself in the court is to be believed, it does come to the fore that the two were in a relationship and she well knew that the accused was duping her throughout. Per the prosecutrix, she had not succumbed to the proposal of the accused. Having allowed access to the accused to her residential quarter, so much so, even having allowed him to stay overnight, she knew the likely outcome of her reaction. Seeing the age of the prosecutrix which is around 40 years, it can be easily inferred that she knew what could be the consequences of allowing a male friend into her bed room at night.

24. The entire circumstances discussed above and which have come to the fore from the testimony of none else but the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that the sexual intercourse was without her consent. The act seems to be consensual in nature.

25. It is also not the case that the consent had been given by the prosecutrix believing the accused’s promise to marry her. For, her testimony itself shows that the entire story of marriage has unfolded after 05.01.2010 when the accused was stated to have been summoned to the office of the Dy. S.P. Prior to 05.01.2010, there is nothing on record to show that the accused had been pestering the prosecutrix for any alliance…..”


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 13  OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4896 of 2015)

TILAK RAJ                         … APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH     … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2012 whereby it has partly allowed the said Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent-State and has upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial court in favour of the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). However, it has convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC but instead of imposing sentence on the appellant for the aforesaid offences, vide order dated 17.03.2015 the High Court has released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.

Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:

On 06.01.2010, the Assistant Sub-inspector of Police (ASI), Chamba (H.P.) received a complaint from prosecutrix through the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Shri. K.D. Sharma, Chamba (H.P). In the said complaint, it was alleged by her that on 01.01.2010 she was raped and physically assaulted by the appellant. It was also alleged by her that when she went to the police station to register her complaint regarding the offence of rape she was threatened with dire consequences by the appellant on phone. Allegation of sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage was also made by her in the said complaint.

On the basis of said written complaint FIR No. 6 of 2010 was registered by the ASI under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC and investigation was conducted by the investigation officer. After investigation a report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant developed intimacy with the prosecutrix (PW 2) about two years prior to the incident. He allured her on the pretext of marriage. On 01.01.2010 the appellant sexually violated the person of prosecutrix in her residential accommodation in Karian, Chamba. At the same time, he not only ravished her but also physically assaulted her by slapping her and twisting her arm.

On the next day i.e., on 02.01.2010, the prosecutrix decided to approach the Police Station, Chamba to get FIR registered against the appellant for the offence of rape. However, at about 6 AM when she reached near Police Station the appellant threatened her against making any complaint or report about him to the police officials otherwise he would kill the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she did not make any complaint.

On the same day, the appellant met prosecutrix near the Regional Hospital, Chamba and offered to take her to his home. He persuaded her not to lodge FIR against him and even promised in writing to marry her. He assured her that both of them would stay as husband and wife. However, instead of taking her to his house he dropped her at her residence with a promise that he would return soon. The appellant did not return thereafter. Feeling cheated thereby, on the same day, she reported the matter to Sh. K.D. Sharma, DSP, Chamba.

On 05.01.2010, both the appellant and the prosecutrix were called in the office of DSP, wherein the appellant agreed in presence of DSP, Chamba and one Yoginder Mohan (PW 3) to marry the prosecutrix the next day i.e., on 06.01.2010. On 06.01.2010, when the prosecutrix along with her family came forward for solemnization of marriage, the appellant did not turn up. The same day FIR No. 06 of 2010 was registered against the appellant. He was booked for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC.

The Court of Sessions, Chamba in sessions trial no. 40 of 2010, after examination of the evidence on record, vide its judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 acquitted the appellant-accused of all the charges levelled against him by giving him a benefit of doubt.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the respondent-State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2012 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla urging various grounds and prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court and prayed to convict and sentence the accused-appellant for the charges levelled against him.

The High Court partly allowed the said Criminal Appeal. It upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial court in favour of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. However, it convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC. The High Court instead of imposing sentence on the appellant for the aforesaid offences released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount. Hence, this appeal.

Mr. Aditya Dhawan, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in actual and correct perspective and its judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

He further contended that the High Court has partly set aside a reasoned judgment passed by the trial court without proper re-appreciation of evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the case in hand. It was further submitted by him that in an appeal against acquittal, the interference by the Appellate Court is not warranted in the absence of perversity of the finding of fact in the judgment of the trial court. Furthermore, it is well settled position of law that if two plausible views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court shall not exercise its appellate jurisdiction to set aside the order of acquittal unless the findings of the trial court on the charge of offences under Sections 417 and 506 Part I of IPC are found erroneous.

It was further contended by him that the High Court has failed to take note of important fact that there is a considerable and unexplained delay of five days in lodging the FIR against the appellant. Further, the non- examination of crucial witness namely Sh. K.D.Sharma, DSP, Chamba to whom the alleged incidence was first reported by the prosecutrix certainly rendered the prosecution case doubtful. In view of the above, he submitted that the prosecution ought to have examined Sh. K.D.Sharma, DSP, Chamba who was a material witness. He further contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the trial court was right in drawing an adverse inference from non-examination of a crucial witness in the case.

He further vehemently contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate certain facts, namely, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident was about 40 years i.e., approximately 10 years more than that of the appellant. Further, she was a government servant at the time of incident and in number of cases she was appointed as protection officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Further, the prosecutrix was in relationship with the appellant for about two years prior to the alleged incident. All the aforesaid facts render the prosecution version completely unbelievable that the appellant established physical intimacy with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside by this Court.

It was further contended by him that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not clear and specific and the same is suffering from material inconsistencies and contradictions with other evidence on record. He further submitted that the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix is incompatible with the credibility of his version is liable to be outrightly rejected by this Court.

While concluding his submissions the learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant on the false pretext of marriage with the prosecutrix and in furtherance of his intention from the very beginning induced her to surrender to him for sexual intercourse. Further, the conviction of the appellant is based only on the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW 2), which in itself could not have been relied upon by the High Court in absence of any corroboration. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated in law and is required to be set aside by this Court.

Per contra, Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court on the ground that the same is well founded and is not vitiated in law. Therefore, no interference with the impugned Judgement and Order of this Court is required in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

We have carefully heard both the parties at length and have also given our conscious thought to the material on record and relevant provisions of The Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”). In the instant case, the prosecutrix was an adult and mature lady of around 40 years at the time of incident. It is admitted by the prosecutrix in her testimony before the trial court that she was in relationship with the appellant for the last two years prior to the incident and the appellant used to stay overnight at her residence. After a perusal of copy of FIR and evidence on record the case set up by the prosecutrix seems to be highly unrealistic and unbelievable.

The evidence as a whole including FIR, testimony of prosecutrix and MLC report prepared by medical practitioner clearly indicate that the story of prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her is concocted and not believable. In fact, the said act of the Appellant seems to be consensual in nature. The trial court has rightly held thus:

“…..23. If the story set up by the prosecutrix herself in the court is to be believed, it does come to the fore that the two were in a relationship and she well knew that the accused was duping her throughout. Per the prosecutrix, she had not succumbed to the proposal of the accused. Having allowed access to the accused to her residential quarter, so much so, even having allowed him to stay overnight, she knew the likely outcome of her reaction. Seeing the age of the prosecutrix which is around 40 years, it can be easily inferred that she knew what could be the consequences of allowing a male friend into her bed room at night.

  1. The entire circumstances discussed above and which have come to the fore from the testimony of none else but the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that the sexual intercourse was without her consent. The act seems to be consensual in nature.
  2. It is also not the case that the consent had been given by the prosecutrix believing the accused’s promise to marry her. For, her testimony itself shows that the entire story of marriage has unfolded after 05.01.2010 when the accused was stated to have been summoned to the office of the Dy. S.P. Prior to 05.01.2010, there is nothing on record to show that the accused had been pestering the prosecutrix for any alliance. The prosecutrix has said a line in her examination-in-chief, but her cross- examination shows that no doubt the two were in relationship, but the question of marriage apparently had not been deliberated upon by any of the two. After the sexual contact, come talk about marriage had cropped up between the two. Thus, it also cannot be said that the consent for sexual intercourse had been given by the prosecutrix under some misconception of marriage.” As far as conviction of the appellant under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC is concerned, a close scrutiny of evidence of the prosecutrix (PW 2) along with other prosecution witnesses is done by this Court. Section 417 of IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of Cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC. Section 415 of IPC reads thus:

“415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.”

The ingredients required to constitute the offence of Cheating have been discussed by this Court in the case of Ram Jas v.State of U.P.[1] as under:

“(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;

(ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.” A careful reading of evidence on record clearly shows that there is no evidence against the appellant from which it can be conclusively inferred by this Court that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the prosecutrix by the appellant to constitute an offence under Section 415 of IPC. For conviction of the Appellant for above said offence, it is important that all the necessary ingredients constituting an offence under the said Section must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 of IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove all ingredients of the said offence beyond reasonable doubt.

  1. Further, Section 506 of IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 of IPC. Section 503 of IPC reads thus:

“503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.” A reading of evidence on record in the light of aforesaid legal provision shows the insufficiency of evidence to hold the conviction of the appellant for the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 part I of IPC.

  1. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecution is neither believable nor reliable to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant. We are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not based on a careful re-appraisal of the evidence on record by the High Court and there is no material evidence on record to show that the appellant is guilty of the charged offences i.e., offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 of IPC and offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 part I of IPC.
  • For the reasons stated supra, this appeal is allowed and we set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

  • CJI. [T.S. THAKUR]

    J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

    New Delhi, January 6, 2016

    [1] [2] (1970) 2 SCC 740

    livein woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc etc 9yrs later! P&H HC Court throws out her claims

    the false rape, false DV saga in India. How a consenting live in partner alleges everything from violence to bigamy to rape !!

    synopsis
    ********************
    * Live in male partner, ‘the accused’, stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC, by lower court
    * female partner (appellant in this case) goes on appeal

    * High court appreciates the facts and sees that
    * the prosecutrix had given history of living with a partner for the last 8/9 years.
    * she admitted that she knew about the accused marrying Poonam (other woman) and siring a child from her.
    * In one of the photographs the prosecutrix is seen holding the child of the accused in her lap.
    * According to her, she had come to know the marriage of the accused with Poonam in 2012 but complained only in the month of February, 2014.
    * she had stated in her examination-in- chief that whenever she asked the accused to marry her he would say that his parents were against proposal
    * The prosecutrix’s accusation that the accused took money from her at different occasions, is not substantiated by any documentary evidence.
    * On the other hand, she had admitted in her cross-examination that the accused was drawing more salary than her and it was she who had utilized his money once by using his credit card and on another occasion by transferring money to her account.

    * The prosecution case taken as such indicates that the prosecutrix has been a consenting party all throughout.

    and decrees “….In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out ….”

    *****************************disclaimer**********************************
    This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
    *******************************************************************************
    CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
    *******************************************************************************

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

    Criminal Appeal No.D-1174-DB of 2015

    Date of Decision : October 08, 2015

    Rekha Nair …..Appellant

    Versus

    State of Haryana and another ….Respondents

    CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMIT RAM

    Present : Mr. Yashpal Gupta, Advocate.

    T.P.S. MANN, J.

    The prosecutrix has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 9.2.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby respondent No.2-Pankaj Kumar, here-in-after referred to as ‘the accused’, stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC.

    Briefly put, the prosecution case is that on 15.2.2014, complaint dated 4.2.2014 was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Gurgaon after enquiry from the Women Cell (West) wherein the prosecutrix had levelled allegations of bigamy, physical assault, sexual abuse, cheating, forgery, dowry harassment, domestic violence, threats etc. against the accused, who was her husband. She had stated in the said complaint that she was friendly with the accused for the last eight years, who got involved with her physically on the promise of marriage. He, however, did not keep his words and married another woman without informing her. He continued to exploit her physically, mentally and financially. When she learnt about his marriage and confronted him, he replied that his father had forced him to marry as he was likely to get lot of dowry and the woman, whom he had got married as well as her parents knew about their relationship. She also stated that the accused had told her that he would obtain divorce and marry her and, accordingly, continued abusing her physically and sexually. He even took money from her on the pretext of filing a divorce case but no such thing ever happened. She had moved a complaint to the police and the accused and his family members were called. The accused with his other wife, father, uncle and aunt visited her house on 24.11.2013. At that time, it was mutually agreed that the accused would marry her as per Islamic law and a writing to that effect was given to the police. The accused and his parents disclosed that as he has since obtained divorce, they can perform his marriage as per Arya Samaj rites. However, while getting married at Arya Samaj temple, he wrongly stated that he was not married. Further case of the prosecution is that it was mutually agreed between the prosecutrix and the accused that the latter would stay for one week with her and one week with the other woman. However, the other woman, namely, Poonam started calling them at odd hours and had also called the accused continuously for two days and she did not allow her to spend a moment of peace with him. The father of the accused intervened and, accordingly, Poonam stopped making calls. However, the accused, his father and Poonam kept on pressurising the prosecutrix to bring money from her mother for purchasing BMW car. The mother of the prosecutrix was a widow and, therefore, not in a position to afford such a huge amount. The accused wanted her mother to transfer her house in his name and when she refused, he started abusing her mentally and physically. She kept on bearing the torture hoping that he would change. The prosecutrix further averred that the parents of the accused came to stay with her on 8.1.2014 and gave her lot of mental pain and agony by saying that the other woman had brought dowry worth lacs and she had not brought anything. The accused kept on abusing her physically. He had been pressurising her to call her friends to have group sex and when she refused, he abused her. She continued to bear the torture and when she asked the father of the accused in that regard, he again abused and demanded money. On 14.1.2014, the accused went to the other woman and was supposed to return on 21.1.2014. However, he did not come back. She talked to him couple of times on phone but he fought with her on the phone and refused to return. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, this Court finds that at the time of her medical examination by PW5 Dr. Anshul Singh, the prosecutrix had given history of living with a partner for the last 8/9 years. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she knew about the accused marrying Poonam and siring a child from her. In one of the photographs brought on the record, the prosecutrix is seen holding the child of the accused in her lap. According to her, she had come to know the marriage of the accused with Poonam in the end of year 2012. However, she submitted her complaint only in the month of February, 2014. Under these circumstances, she cannot be heard saying that she was forced into sexual relationship on the promise of marriage. On the other hand, she had stated in her examination-in- chief that whenever she asked the accused to marry her he would say that his parents were against the proposal since they both were from different caste and different states.

    The stand taken by the prosecutrix that the accused had taken money from her at different occasions is not substantiated by bringing on record any documentary evidence. On the other hand, she had admitted in her cross-examination that the accused was drawing more salary than her and it was she who had utilized his money once by using his credit card and on another occasion by transferring money to her account. The prosecution case taken as such indicates that the prosecutrix has been a consenting party all throughout. Even otherwise, when the prosecutrix and the accused got married in Arya Samaj temple, she knew about the earlier marriage of the accused. Merely because the accused had mentioned his status as ‘unmarried’ in the affidavit furnished by him at the time of his marriage with the prosecutrix in Arya Samaj temple, Delhi, it would not amount to forgery as the accused had already disclosed to her about his marriage with Poonam. Even otherwise, the affidavits alleged to have been forged by the accused are not proved on record.

    In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal.

    The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

    ( T.P.S. MANN )
    JUDGE

    ( GURMIT RAM )
    JUDGE

    October 08, 2015

    satish

    ************************
    Sec 376(2)(n) as taken from press release bureau site is given here

    376. (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

    ( 2 ) Whoever,—
    ( a ) being a police officer, commits rape—
    ( i ) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or
    ( ii ) in the premises of any station house; or
    ( iii ) on a woman in such police officer’s custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or
    ( b ) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant’s custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or
    ( c ) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or
    ( d ) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women’s or children’s institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
    ( e ) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
    ( f ) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or
    ( g ) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
    ( h ) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
    ( i ) commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age; or Punishment for rape.
    ( j ) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or
    ( k ) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or
    ( l ) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or
    ( m ) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or
    ( n ) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman
    shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment …….