In-laws, husband acquitted of charges of gang-rape, cruelty; court orders FIR against woman, father
The ASJ said the entire system believed and valued the prosecutrixs statement as that of an injured witness but she along with her father had exploited even the liberal interpretation and evaluation of evidence.The Janakpuri police station had registered an FIR against the husband for the offences of cruelty, criminal breach of trust, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and common intention.
A court here has acquitted a woman's in-laws and husband of charges of gang-rape and cruelty, and directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against the complainant father-daughter duo for allegedly levelling false charges.
Additional Sessions Judge Aanchal was hearing a case against the three accused -- the husband, his father and sister -- against whom an FIR was filed with at the Janakpuri police station in 2014 for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The ASJ acquitted both in-laws of offences including under IPC section 376 D (gang-rape), and the husband of the charges under sections 498 A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The judge further said the prosecution ''miserably failed'' to prove the commission of offences regarding the charges against the three accused persons.
''Station house officer (SHO) concerned of Janakpuri is hereby directed to register FIR under section 211 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure) against prosecutrix and her father within 24 hours of receipt of the present judgment under the intimation to this Court and to file the detailed investigation report preferably within three months before magistrate concerned,'' the judge said in an order passed on April 29 which was made public on Wednesday.
Underlining that ''strict action'' against them was required, the ASJ said, ''Their act... definitely falls within the purview of an illegal act and is an offence of making a false charge of an offence punishable with imprisonment extending to life...'' The judge said that in the present case, the first complaint was made by the woman's father, an advocate, who presented distorted and imaginary facts to force the three accused to agree to a term that the prosecutrix and her husband would live separately.
''...when further matrimonial discord arose, the prosecutrix herself owned the false facts and maintained this falsehood for many years and even on the date of her appearance in the court as a witness and ultimately she deposed falsely,'' the judge said. ''At this stage, this court is also constrained to observe that in fact, the prosecution case was solely relying upon the complaint initiated by the father of the prosecutrix who is a practising advocate and thereafter on the complaint made by the prosecutrix who herself adopted the complaint led by her father and from the evidence produced before the court, the allegations levelled and the facts stated in these complaints are proved completely false and framed,'' the judge said. Noting that the false allegations also included that for gang-rape, the judge said, ''Rape is a heinous crime which is required to be dealt with strictly but simultaneously false allegation qua the rape is also required to be dealt firmly since these allegations cause huge humiliation to the accused and have potential to isolate the concerned, including his family and near ones, from society.'' ASJ Aanchal said the allegations were levelled that the father-in-law had committed the rape with the aid, assistance and in the presence of her daughter. Deprecating the conduct of the prosecutrix and her father, the court said, ''Their conduct seems to be deliberate as the father of the prosecutrix had been a practising advocate and the prosecutes had himself a graduate in law. ''With this background, this court realises itself to be under obligation to stand for … (those who are) comparatively less acquainted with the provisions and statute and have to face the allegations for long (and in the present case for) more than eight years,'' the judge said.
''In Indian society, a distance more specifically in respect of sex is maintained between father and daughter is a mark of respect to the extent that they do not talk about the same to each other but unfortunately, with the allegations levelled herein, prosecutrix and her father had assaulted this relation as well,'' the judge added. The ASJ said the entire system believed and valued the prosecutrix's statement as that of an ''injured witness'' but she along with her father had ''exploited even the liberal interpretation and evaluation of evidence''.
The Janakpuri police station had registered an FIR against the husband for the offences of cruelty, criminal breach of trust, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and common intention. The in-laws were charged of offences under IPC sections 408 A (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant) 406 (punishment for criminal brach of trust), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation), 34 (common intention) and 376 D of the IPC.
(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)