MS. P XXX versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 16-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 324
 MS. P1 xxx
v.
 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2022)
JUNE 16, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.177-180, 184, 218,
220 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 504, 506 – Allegations against
respondent No.2-accused consisting of offences of distinct nature,
one set of allegations is of the offence of rape at Delhi (s.376, IPC)
and the other set of allegations is of hurling abuses and extending
threat on phone calls received by the appellant at her village in
District Chamoli (ss.504, 506 IPC), if could be said to be ‘one series
of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction’ for
the purpose of trial together in terms of s.220, CrPC – Held: On
13.11.2015, the appellant and the respondent no.2 were engaged
for matrimonial alliance at their village Dangidhar, Tehsil Gairsain,
District Chamoli but, the proposal of marriage did not materialize –
However, the alleged acts of sexual relationship took place at Delhi
in the months of February and March, 2016 – The other alleged
acts had been of the respondent no.2 hurling abuses and extending
threats in or around the month of November, 2016, which the
appellant received over telephone at her village – The acts in question
were neither proximate in time nor proximate in place; they were
not of continuity either–It is difficult to find continuity of actions
and community of purpose or design in two different acts leading
to two different set of offences, i.e., one u/s.376 and the other under
ss.504/506– Thus, on facts, the alleged offence u/s.376 and the
other offences u/ss.504 and 506 do not fall within the ambit of ‘one
series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction’
1 Looking to the subject matter of this appeal, which involves the accusations pertaining
to the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we
have masked the identity of the appellant and substituted her name by the expression
“Ms. P” in the title as also in the body of this judgment, wherever occurring.
The office shall take care while issuing the relevant copies to not disclose the
identity of the appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
for the purpose of trial together in terms of s.220 CrPC – Thus, the
Sessions Judge, Chamoli rightly discharged the respondent no.2 of
the offence u/s.376 for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Constitution of India – Article 20 –Code of CriminalProcedure,
1973 –s.300 – Allegations against the respondent No.2-accused
were of offence u/s.376 as allegedly committed in Delhi and u/ss.504
and 506 IPC where the respondent no.2 allegedly hurled abuses
and extended threats which the appellant received over telephone
at her village in Chamoli, Uttarakhand – Sessions Judge, Chamoli
while discharging the respondent no.2 of the offence u/s.376 on
the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction transferred the matter
to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gairsain, District
Chamoli for trial of the respondent No. 2 in relation to the remaining
offences u/ss.504 and 506 IPC wherein respondent no.2 was
acquitted – Held: Respondent No.2 having gone through the trial
in relation to offences u/ss.504 and 506 IPC and having been
acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges
on the same facts – Any such process would be in blatant disregard
of the settled principles which disapprove double jeopardy and are
precisely contained in Article 20(2), Constitution of India as also
s.300, CrPC –Protection u/clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution
of India is clear and unambiguous.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.461(1) –Segregation
of charge of the offence u/s.376, IPC from offences u/ss.504, 506
IPC – Accused-respondent No.2 acquitted of offences u/ss.504,
506IPC – Plea of State that the segregation of charge of the offence
u/s.376 IPC had been erroneous and because of this error, the matter
went to trial before the Judicial Magistrate for the offences u/ss.504
and 506 IPC though the entire matter ought to be tried in the Court
of Sessions – Held: Rejected – There had been no error in
segregation of the charge of the offence u/s.376 IPC – This line of
submissions, questioning the validity of the proceedings before the
Judicial Magistrate, remains baseless and is rather misplaced.
Words & Phrases – “same transaction”– Discussed – Tests to
be applied for determinin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.