New Delhi, April 1 A sessions court here has upheld the acquittal of a man by a magisterial court in a case of domestic cruelty and marital rape, finding the cruelty allegation to be "vague and general", and the rape allegation to be contradicted by 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, who was 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.
"This leaves no doubt that the alleged offences under sections 377/498A/406 of the IPC are not applicable against the respondent/accused, Karan, who is the complainant's husband. Accordingly, the order dated November 4, 2023, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, and the order is 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, citing a 2024 judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which stated that offences under 377 of the IPC cannot be made out in a marital relationship.
The court found the allegations under Section 377 IPC to be "motivated" and "afterthought", citing 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 a sexual relationship with me forcibly without my consent."
The court found that the complainant also stated on July 10, 2017, 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 fall within the definition of cruelty.
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 "unsubstantiated."
"There are no specific instances with any date, time, and place of alleged extra-marital affairs with other women, abusing the complainant's family members, slapping, or disrespecting the complainant, which could attract provisions of Section 498A," said the judge.
The court also agreed with the magisterial court's decision to dismiss charges under Section 406, finding 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 in time, the complainant entrusted her jewellery, clothes, and cash to the respondent or that they were later misappropriated by the respondent with dishonest intent," the judge said.
"Even if it is assumed that there was an entrustment, I am of the considered view that only general and vague allegations have been made without elaborating on the date, time, and place when the 'stridhan' was handed over," he said.
The court also noted that the complainant failed to provide specific details about the 'stridhan', such as the weight of the jewellery or the amount of cash.
