LexSH. SATISH MEHRA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... < SH. SATISH MEHRA v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. JULY, 31, 1996 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 227 and 22&-Framing of Charge-Case under sections 354, 376 and 511 registered against husband on wife's complaint--Owrge framed by court relying 011 testimony of daughte1; alleged victim of incestuous rape pe1petrated by her fathe1~Vengeful attitude of mother towards her hus- ba11d--<:011siderations which should weigh with court at charge-stag~Suffi cient gmwzd to trial-Standard of proof nonnally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied. Sections 226 and 239---Scope of-Admissibility of any material other than those produced by the }Jrosecution. A B c D Appellant 'S' and his wife 'A', the second respondent lived in U.S.A. ever since their marriage. They had three children among whom the eldest E was 'N'. The relationship between appellant and second respondent had been far from cordial ever since the marriage and there had been allega· tions and counter· allegations. The appellant approached a court in U.S.A. for the custody of children. The second respondent left the house with the children and then filed a complaint in the USA alleging that appellant had sexually abused 'N' who was then aged four. On investigation in the USA F found the allegation of incestuous abuse to be untrue. The second Respon· dent then returned to India with the children. Meanwhile, a court in USA ordered the custody of the children to be given to the appellant. Upon her return to India, the second Respondent once again filed a complaint to the police alleging that appellant sexually abused 'N' while they were in USA G and other allegations were also made thereafter. Appellant also returned to India and moved the court for the custody of children. The present case is based on the complaint filed by second Respon- dent under which a case was registered against the appellant under sections 354, 376 and 498-A of the I.P.C. Finally, the charged for offences H 197 A B c 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. under section 354 and 376 read with section 511 of !PC was framed against him by the sessions court. Having failed at the FIR stage itself in the High Court, appellant had approached this court. On the question whether the sessions court should have framed the charge against the appellant as it did : Allo\ling the appeal, this court HELD : l.l. There is no sufficient ground to proceed to trial. The sessions Judges has missed certain germane aspects. Apart from the seemingly incredulous nature of the accusations against a father that he molested his infant child (who would have just passed her suckling stage then) the sessions Judge ought not to have overlooked the tellin!: cir- cumstances. [205-B-C) 1.2. Even overlooking all the inherent infirmities shrouding the testimony of a tiny-tot speaking about what her father did when she was aged 3 and even ignoring the appellant's persistent submission that the D little child was briskly tutored by her mother to speak to the present version, there is no reasonable prospect of the sessions court relying on such a testimony to reach the conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. [207-E-F) E 1.3. Moreover, one has to see the consequence if this nebulous allegation is allowed to proceed to the trial stage. It is foreseen that 'N', the child \litness, now eight years and four months old, must necessarily be subjected to cross~questions involving sex and sex organs. The traumatic impact on the child when she would be confronted by volley of questions dealing \lith such a subject is a matter of concern. As submitted F by the appellant such an order would inflict devastating impairment on the development of the child's personality. Of course, if such a course is of any use to the cause of justice, it may have to be borne \lith as an inevitable course of action to be resorted to. But in this case, when tlu' trial is going to be nothing but a farce, such a course of action should not be G allowed to take place on account of the impending consequences befalling an innocent child. [207-F-H; 208-A) 1.4. The Second Respondent's attitude to the appellant, even de hors the allegation involving the child, was vengeful. The assertion of the appellant that the present story involving 'N' was concocted by the second H respond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.