LexSHIV PRATAP SINGH RANA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 8 : 2024 INSC 481 Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023) 08 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR u/s. 376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC on 06.09.2018 against the appellant. The charges u/s. 376(2) (n) and s.506 of IPC were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge filed by the appellant was rejected. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s. 376(2)(n) and s.506 – Prosecution case that appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix on the false promise of marriage and threatening to make public her photographs – Trial Court framed charges u/s.376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC – A criminal revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: From a perusal and comparison of the two statements of the prosecutrix, one before the police u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and the other u/s. 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 – There were also talks between the parties and their family members regarding marriage, the same did not fructify leading to lodging of FIR – 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 prosecurtix – The mobile phone of the appellant or the photographs allegedly taken by the appellant were not recovered or seized – The jewellery allegedly given by the prosecutrix to the appellant has not been seized – A stamp paper dated 07.07.2017 wherein appellant * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 9 Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. expressed his desire to marry the prosecutrix has also not been seized – In the absence of such materials, it is impossible for the prosecution to prove the charges of rape and intimidation against the appellant – Compelling the appellant to face the criminal trial on these materials would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 24] Penal Code, 1860 – s.90 – Consent to be given under fear or misconception – Misconception of fact – Discussed. Case Law Cited Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 13 SCR 920 : (2019) 18 SCC 191; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2019] 11 SCR 423 : (2019) 9 SCC 608 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Rape; Section 376(2)(n) of Penal Code, 1860; Section 90 of Penal Code, 1860; Commission of rape on false pretext of marriage; Contradiction in statements; Delay in filing FIR; Consensual relationship gone sour; Threat; Coercion; Consent to be given under fear or misconception; Misconception of fact. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2019 of the High Court of M.P. at Gwalior in CRR No. 2288 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Abhinav Ramkrishna, Amit Lahoti, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Ms. Samina Thakura, Advs. for the Appellant. Harmeet Ruprah, D.A.G., Yashraj Singh Bundela, Surjeet Singh, Mrs. Pratima Singh, Chanakya Baruah, Abhijeet Singh, Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Anirudh Singh, Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjai Shekhwat, Dashrath Singh, Ms. Anjali Sexena, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advs. for the Respondents. 10 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 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 th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.