Summary
A woman engaged in her village in District Chamoli, Uttarakhand alleged that her fiancé had sexual intercourse with her against her will at his Delhi residence in February 2016 on the threat of ending the engagement, later demanded Rs 25 lakh, and in late 2016 abused and threatened to kill her over the phone. A charge-sheet under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC was committed to the Sessions Judge, Chamoli, who discharged the accused of the Section 376 offence for want of territorial jurisdiction, leaving the prosecution free to proceed in the proper court, and sent the remaining offences to the Magistrate, who later acquitted him. The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the complainant's revision in a cryptic order treating the discharge as an acquittal.
Issues
- Whether an alleged rape committed at Delhi and later offences of insult and criminal intimidation committed by phone calls received at Chamoli are 'one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction' under Section 220 CrPC so as to be triable together at Chamoli.
- Whether the Magistrate's trial of the segregated offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was void under Section 461(l) CrPC, and whether the accused, acquitted of those offences, may be tried again.
Provisions considered
- Sections 177, 178, 179, 180, 184 and 220, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 178 deals with a single offence committed partly in several areas, continuing, or consisting of several acts in different areas, as in the Section 498A/406 cases of Satvinder Kaur and Sunita Kumari Kashyap; it does not apply to distinct offences at different places. Whether distinct offences may be tried together under Sections 184 and 220 turns on proximity of time, unity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose (Mohan Baitha, Anju Chaudhary), which were absent here. (¶¶ 19.2, 19.3, 20, 20.3, 21, 22.1, 22.2, 25)
- Sections 218, 227, 300 and 461(l), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Magistrate was empowered to try Sections 504 and 506 (Part II) IPC, so the segregated trial was not void under Section 461(l). The order was one of discharge under Section 227, not acquittal. Having been acquitted of Sections 504 and 506, the accused cannot be retried for them (Article 20(2), Section 300), but may be tried for Section 376 by the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which alone could try it. (¶¶ 16.1, 24.1.1, 24.2, 24.3)
- Sections 376, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860The completed act of sexual exploitation at Delhi in February–March 2016 and the abuses and death threats over the phone around November 2016 were 'chalk and cheese' — different offences of different nature at different places, with no allegation that the later threats were aimed at coercing further sexual relations. (¶¶ 20, 22.1, 22.2)
- Article 20(2), Constitution of IndiaThe accused, tried and acquitted of insult and intimidation, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts. (¶ 24.2)
Held
- The expression 'same transaction' in Section 220 CrPC is incapable of exact definition; whether acts are so connected is a question of fact decided by common sense on the factors of proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design. The alleged rape at Delhi was a completed act whose design was accomplished in February–March 2016; the abuses and threats received at Chamoli months later were not proximate, continuous or of common purpose with it, so the offences could not be tried together and the Sessions Judge rightly discharged the accused of Section 376 IPC for want of territorial jurisdiction. (¶¶ 20.3, 21, 22.1, 22.2, 23, 25)
- The High Court disposed of the revision cursorily, in the revisionist's absence, on the erroneous assumption that it was a challenge to an acquittal; rather than remand, the Court decided the question on merits given the protracted litigation, without expressing any view on the merits of the rape allegation, which was premature. (¶¶ 4, 16.1, 16.2)
- The State's plea that the Magistrate's trial was void under Section 461(l) was baseless: Section 504 is triable by any Magistrate and Section 506 Part II by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, and while the segregation order stood the Magistrate was bound to proceed. The acquittal bars retrial for Sections 504 and 506 under Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC, but does not bar trial for Section 376 IPC before the competent Sessions Court. (¶¶ 24.1, 24.1.1, 24.2, 24.3)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Sessions Judge, Chamoli's order of 28.10.2017 discharging the accused of the offence under Section 376 IPC for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the prosecution to proceed in the appropriate court, upheld.