Law Does Not Permit For Conducting Mini Trial At Revision Stage: Bombay HC Directs For Early Disposal Of Trial In Rape Case Of Police Sub-Inspector

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in a case involving rape of a female Sub Inspector of Police has directed the Special Judge to dispose of the trial as early as possible saying that the question of fact involved needs to be tested based on the evidence.

The Court held that law does not permit for conducting a mini-trial at the revision stage.

The Court was deciding a revision application that challenged the order passed by the Special Judge whereby application of the accused/applicant for discharge in a crime for offences punishable under Sections 376, 493, 496 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was rejected.

A Single Bench of Justice G.A. Sanap observed, “In my view, the question of fact as observed above cannot be addressed at this stage on the basis of the facts stated in the application made by the accused for discharge. The question of fact involved in this case needs to be tested on the basis of the evidence. Appreciation of the material compiled in the chargesheet and dealing with the pros and cons of the case of the prosecution at this stage, would be nothing short of conducting a mini trial. The law does not permit the same.”

The Bench, therefore, said that the material on record is sufficient to satisfy the requirements to proceed against the accused by framing the charge.

Advocate S.V. Sirpurkar appeared for the accused/applicant while APP Mayuri H. Deshmukh appeared for the State and Advocate Shital V. Dhawas appeared for the victim.

In this case, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act). The accused and victim were preparing for competitive examination and a friendship developed between them which blossomed into love affair. It was the case of the victim that the accused through a common friend proposed her but considering the age difference of seven years between her and the accused, she refused the said proposal. She also refused the proposal considering that they belonged to different caste but thereafter, the accused took her to his village and applied vermilion (sindur) on her head in a temple and declared that they were married.

The accused further declared that they would get married after getting employment. One day the accused called the victim alone where he was residing and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and then on number of occasions, under the promise of marriage, he committed sexual intercourse with her. In 2005, the victim was selected as Police Sub Inspector and during that time as well, the accused sexually exploited her. In 2009, the accused was also selected as Police Sub Inspector. However, the victim came to know that the accused had developed intimacy with another girl and at that time, flatly refused to marry with her. Hence, a case was registered by the victim against the accused.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “In my view, the main issue of fact arising in this case is, whether the consent of the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse was vitiated by false promise made by the accused to marry her? … Perusal of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge would show that the learned Judge has taken entire material compiled in the charge-sheet into consideration and based on the said material, rejected the application for discharge.”

The Court said that the reasons recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge are supported by the material on record.

“It is further pertinent to note that the accused had applied for quashing the FIR in Criminal Application (APL) No. 1424 of 2010. The FIR was quashed to the extent of the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Atrocities Act. The Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to quash the FIR to the extent of the offence under the IPC”, added the Court.

The Court held that the Judge has not committed any mistake in rejecting the application, therefore, the proposition of law laid down in the decisions, relied upon by the advocate for the accused, is not applicable to the case of the accused at this stage.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and directed the Judge to dispose of the trial as early as possible and in any case within six months.

Cause Title- Virendra Dinkarrao Pilondre v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-NAG:13319)

Click here to read/download the Judgment