The court discharges the accused from Section 376 IPC due to the marital relationship but upholds charges under Sections 270 and 120B IPC.
In a significant decision, the Rajasthan High Court has set aside the charge of rape against Ratan Lal Jangid, citing the existence of a marital relationship at the time of the alleged incidents. The order, passed by Justice Kuldeep Mathur, stems from a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges by the Additional Sessions Judge in Bhilwara.
The case revolves around the prosecutrix, who entered into a relationship with Jangid following her divorce in 2014. The two met through an advertisement for remarriage and agreed to marry in July 2015. However, the formalities of marriage were not completed as planned due to purported family disputes. Despite this, the two lived as husband and wife, with the prosecutrix giving birth to a child in June 2016, for whom Jangid is named as the father on the birth certificate.
The court found that the relationship between the prosecutrix and Jangid was treated as that of husband and wife, thus invoking Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which excludes consensual acts between a man and his wife from the definition of rape, provided the wife is not under fifteen. As the prosecutrix was above this age, the charge under Section 376 was deemed inapplicable.
However, the court upheld the charges under Sections 270 and 120B of the IPC. The accusations include a criminal conspiracy involving co-accused individuals and the petitioner's alleged HIV-positive status, with claims that he discontinued prescribed treatment. The material evidence collected during the investigation, including medical records, supported the decision to proceed with these charges.
The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the veracity of evidence is not meticulously examined. The decision to discharge Jangid from the rape charge was based on the lack of foundational ingredients for the offence under the circumstances described. Nonetheless, the court determined that sufficient prima facie evidence exists for the other charges, necessitating a trial.
This ruling highlights the intricate balance the courts must maintain between the letter of the law and the circumstances of each case. The trial will continue for the remaining charges, and the accused will face legal proceedings accordingly.
Bottom Line :
Framing of charges under Section 376 IPC against accused set aside due to marital relationship between prosecutrix and accused at the relevant time; charges under Sections 270 and 120B IPC upheld.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 376, 270, 120B; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 227
Ratan Lal Jangid v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2962595
