PRATIBHA RANI,J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th March, 2017 whereby respondent/accused person has been discharged in case FIR No.1622/2015 under Section 376/328/323/506 IPC, PS Janak Puri, the State has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to set aside the order on discharge.
(2.) Before the learned Trial Court, the respondent/accused sought his discharge on the grounds which are recorded in para 5 of the impugned order as under:- '5. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. She withdrew her complaint on 6.12.2015 and also refused to undergo her internal medical examination when she was taken to hospital on 6.12.2015. According to him, if a grown up girl has consented to sexual intercourse with a person who held out false promise to marry her, it would not amount to consenting under any misconception of fact under section 90 IPC and, as such, no offence of rape can be said to have been committed. According to him, no prima facie case for the alleged offences is made out against the accused and he is liable to be discharged.'
(3.) Vide impugned order dated 20th March, 2017, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discharged the accused/respondent for the following reasons: '16. After examining the documentary as well as oral evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, is not showing that accused committed the alleged offences for which they are being prosecuted because of following reasons: (a) No complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix till December 2015 though she was allegedly raped by the accused since June 2012. There is no valid justification for delay in lodging the FIR. (b ) The evidentiary value of the medical evidence is zero. (c) The prosecutrix withdrew her complaint on 6.12.2015 specifically mentioning that allegations of rape were made by her on some misunderstanding. Assuming for the sake of argument that her consent was obtained on pretext of marriage, the consent cannot be said to result from misconception of fact in the facts and circumstances of this case. (d) In view of the judgment Sanjay Singh (supra) ingredients of Section 328 IPC are not attracted to the present case. (e) No obscene photographs/video were recovered during investigation. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, after sifting and weighing the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused, I am of the opinion that the materials placed before the Court do not disclose the grave suspicion against the accused for framing a charge against him for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/328/323/506 IPC. Accordingly, accused in the present case is discharged for the offences punishable under sections 376/328/323/506 IPC. His personal bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. In terms of Section 437(A) Cr. P.C., 1973 accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months for his appearance before the High Court of Delhi in the event the prosecution wishes to challenge the present order by filing the appropriate petition in the High Court. Ahlmad is directed to page and bookmark the file so as to enable the digitisation of the entire record. File be consigned to Record Room.' ;