Introduction:

The case arises out of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. seeking to quash the order of an Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal wherein he framed charge under sections 354, 354A(1), 354A(4) and 306 read with section 511 of the IPC against the petitioner. The case was that a woman CISF constable had complained of sexual harassment and had attempted suicide after the incident as pointed out in the case write-up.

Facts of the Case:

A lady constable in CISF at Bhopal filed a complaint with the Madhya Pradesh State Women commission on 5/08/2014. She said that the petitioner, who is a Deputy Commandant (D. C. ) used to make vulgar remarks and attempt to touch her. On August 7th, 2014, Ritu tried to commit suicide, and she was admitted in intensive care unit. This is the evidence given to the Executive Magistrate in her dying statement which was that the petitioner had always harassed her by scolding her for being late on duty which prompted her to commit suicide. Considering these allegations, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 354, 354 A (1) (iv) & 354-D of the IPC. After this, Section 306 read with Section 511 IPC charges were included as well.

Contention of the Petitioner:

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case which the prosecution sought to bring against the petitioner was anchored on a suicide note which did not in any way show that the petitioner had committed a criminal act. He also informed the court that a statutory committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, held the allegations of sexual harassment false and asked the institution to take disciplinary action against the complainant. According to the petitioner, the case did not have the prerequisites that will warrant framing of charges under Sections 354, 354-A(1), 354A(4), and 306 read with Section 511 of the IPC. In addition, the petitioner pointed out that there was no satisfactory reason for the delay of filing the complaint for 21 days and moreover, there was no sufficient evidentiary value supporting the charge of giving a dying declaration.

Contention of the Respondent:

It was the position of the State that the trial court was right in framing charges against the petitioner. The prosecution stated that the qualitative evidence such as the testimony of the witnesses and the dying declaration were enough to have the petitioner rearrested and be put to trial.

Court’s Observation:

The court stated that it went through all the issues of the case and examined the witness statement as well as the dying declaration. The Hon’ble Court  also pointed out that the witnesses such as the parents of the victim as well as other witnesses who testified in the case were not present during the incident as they testified by hearsay. The court underlined the importance of the victim’s last words which is regarded as trustworthy evidence at the court. Thus, the court noted that there was no testimony in the dying declaration which pointed out that the petitioner was involved in a criminal act or had any criminal plan. The court also added that the allegations of sexual harassment which were levelled against the employee were held to be false by the statutory committee and this too has added major loses for the prosecution.

Court’s Decision:

Analyzing all the evidence and arguments which were presented before the court, the court said that the ingredients requisite for framing a charge under Section 354, 354-A(1), 354A(4), and 306 read with Section 511 IPC could not be proved. Finally, the court remarked that the case of the prosecution was not backed with stringent evidence and the dying declaration was not a material which could form the basis of the charges preferred. Therefore, the prosecutorial discretion was dismissed with the cancellation of charges framed against the petitioner in the court and enabling the petitioner to get the petition to be passed.

Conclusion:

Furthermore, the court dismissed the charges against the petitioner through lack of evidence and the lacking components needed to support the charges. It also stressed the need for proper evidence while framing charges and dismissed the charges made by the complainant which were proved to be false by the statutory committee (IC).

– Deeksha Rai