'Two-Month Delay In Lodging FIR in Gang Rape Case Not Extraordinary, Cannot Disbelieve Entire Occurrence': Patna High Court
The Patna HC has held that a two-month delay in lodging an FIR in a gang-rape case is not so extraordinary that the entire occurrence can be disbelieved on that ground alone.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a quashing petition seeking to set aside the order dated 27.11.2018 by which the Special Judge, SC/ST, Patna had taken cognizance under Section 376(D) of the IPC, Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 67 of the IT Act against the petitioner in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.240/2018.
The prosecution case was that the informant was allegedly raped by four to five persons while she was on her way to her maternal uncle's house at Narayanpur, Musahri. Ramayan Manjhi, who was known to the informant, was allegedly present nearby.
According to the FIR, the informant came to know the names of the accused as they addressed each other during the incident. She subsequently confirmed their names with Ramayan Manjhi before the FIR was lodged.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the case was concocted and that the FIR did not specify the date or time of the alleged occurrence. It was further argued that the FIR had been lodged after two months and that the accused had been identified on the basis of information provided by Ramayan Manjhi, whom the informant subsequently married. The State opposed the quashing petition.
The Court noted that the case concerned an alleged gang rape of the informant while she was proceeding to her maternal uncle's house. It also observed that the subsequent marriage between the informant and Ramayan Manjhi had no bearing on the prosecution case since, according to the FIR, Ramayan Manjhi was already known to her before the occurrence. The Court held:
“Two months delay in gang-rape case is not such extraordinary delay on the basis of which entire occurrence can be disbelieved.”
The Court further held that, after investigation, the police had submitted a charge-sheet and the Trial Court had thereafter taken cognizance. It found that the cognizance order could not be said to be questionable in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
The Court accordingly found no merit in the quashing petition and dismissed the application.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP