New Delhi, Apr 1 A sessions court here has upheld the acquittal of a man by a magisterial court in a domestic cruelty and marital rape case, finding the cruelty allegation to be "vague and general", and the rape allegation contradicted the complainant's own statement in another case.
Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant against an order passed by a magisterial court on November 4, 2023.
The judge discharged the accused of all charges filed under sections 377 (unnatural sexual offences), 498A (cruelty by a husband against his wife), and 406 ( criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, the complainant, married to Karan since 2017, was mistreated by her in-laws. She accused them of beating her on July 9, 2017, and her husband of committing forcible sexual assault and unnatural sex on July 10, 2017.
"It leaves no doubt that the alleged offences U/s 377/498A/406 IPC are not attracted against the respondent/accused Karan, who is husband of the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated November 4, 2023 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the impugned order stands upheld," the court said in its order dated March 13.
The court agreed with the lower court's decision to not proceed with the charges under Section 377 IPC as it cited a 2024 judgment from Madhya Pradesh High Court which opined offences under 377 of IPC cannot be made out in a marital relationship.
The court found the allegations under Section 377 IPC to be "motivated" and "afterthought", as it cited the complainant's own statements during a cross-examination in a domestic violence matter that was dismissed on March 8, 2022.
The statements negated and contradicted her own allegations of forcible unnatural intercourse, as the woman stated, "Karan never tried to establish sexual relationship with me forcibly without my consent."
The court found that the complainant on July 10, 2017, also stated that the "accused had unnatural sex with her with more force than usual and not without consent."
The court agreed with the magisterial court's stance that no charge could be framed under Section 498A of the IPC as none of the allegations made by the complainant come within the ambit of cruelty defined in the provision.
It noted that the initial FIR was only registered under Section 377 IPC and allegations of domestic cruelty were never mentioned in the pre-trial statement before the magistrate.
The court found that the family members of the accused were only named in the chargesheet "vaguely" and "mechanically" at the end, and found the allegations of physical assault on July 9, 2017 to be "compromised."
"No specific instances with any date, time and place of alleged extra marital affair with other women, abusing family members of complainant, slapping and disrespecting the complainant, have been disclosed which could attract provisions of Section 498A," said the judge.
The court also agreed with the magisterial court's stance to dismiss charges under Section 406 as it found the allegations of the accused misappropriating her 'stridhan' to be "vague and general."
"In my considered view, the facts as alleged by the complainant do not reveal that at any point of time, the complainant made entrustment (of her jewellery, clothes and cash) to the respondent or same were later on misappropriated by the respondent with dishonest intention," the judge said.
"Even if it is assumed that there was an entrustment, then also, I am of the considered view that only general and vague allegations have been made without elaborating upon the date, time and place when the stridhan was handed over," he said.
The court also noted that the complainant failed to elaborate upon specific details about the stridhan such as weight of the jewellery, or the amount of cash.
