<p>The Supreme Court set aside an “utterly incomprehensible” judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, discharging an accused of rape on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR, describing the facts of the case as “quite heart-breaking”.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and J B Pardiwala said the order of the high court could be termed as "perverse and not sustainable in law”.</p>.<p>The bench noted that the facts of the litigation are quite “heart-breaking” and more disturbing is the “utterly incomprehensible” judgment of the high court discharging the accused of the offence of rape essentially on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR. The bench said it has not come across such a discharge.</p>.<p>Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said, “The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence,”</p>.<p>The high court passed the judgment on December 2, 2021. The father of the victim moved the apex court against the high court verdict.</p>.<p>In April 2020, the victim delivered the child on a bench of a hospital and informed her father that Amit Kumar Tiwari was the father of the child. Within hours, the victim ended her life by suicide at the hospital. It was alleged that the victim took the extreme step out of shame as she had delivered an illegitimate child of the accused. An FIR was lodged against Tiwari and the trial court framed charges for rape and provisions of the POCSO Act against him.</p>.<p>The bench noted that in a case praying for quashing of the charge, the high court should have examined if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, and would it constitute an offence or not.</p>.<p>The bench said when an accused seeks quashing of charge framed against him, the superior court “should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed”.</p>.<p>The top court said: “Another disturbing feature of this litigation is that it is the unfortunate father of the deceased who had to come before this court seeking justice. It was expected of the State to challenge the illegal order passed by the high court”.</p>.<p>The bench said the high court’s conclusion about the age of the deceased and also as regards the delay in lodging the FIR besides being a premature assessment of evidence, is also attributable to the wrong premises on which the high court’s reasoning is based.</p>.<p>The top court allowed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the December 2020 order of framing charge. However, it did not interfere with the decision of the trial court of discharging the accused Tiwari, from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to the commission of suicide).</p>
<p>The Supreme Court set aside an “utterly incomprehensible” judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, discharging an accused of rape on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR, describing the facts of the case as “quite heart-breaking”.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and J B Pardiwala said the order of the high court could be termed as "perverse and not sustainable in law”.</p>.<p>The bench noted that the facts of the litigation are quite “heart-breaking” and more disturbing is the “utterly incomprehensible” judgment of the high court discharging the accused of the offence of rape essentially on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR. The bench said it has not come across such a discharge.</p>.<p>Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said, “The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence,”</p>.<p>The high court passed the judgment on December 2, 2021. The father of the victim moved the apex court against the high court verdict.</p>.<p>In April 2020, the victim delivered the child on a bench of a hospital and informed her father that Amit Kumar Tiwari was the father of the child. Within hours, the victim ended her life by suicide at the hospital. It was alleged that the victim took the extreme step out of shame as she had delivered an illegitimate child of the accused. An FIR was lodged against Tiwari and the trial court framed charges for rape and provisions of the POCSO Act against him.</p>.<p>The bench noted that in a case praying for quashing of the charge, the high court should have examined if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, and would it constitute an offence or not.</p>.<p>The bench said when an accused seeks quashing of charge framed against him, the superior court “should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed”.</p>.<p>The top court said: “Another disturbing feature of this litigation is that it is the unfortunate father of the deceased who had to come before this court seeking justice. It was expected of the State to challenge the illegal order passed by the high court”.</p>.<p>The bench said the high court’s conclusion about the age of the deceased and also as regards the delay in lodging the FIR besides being a premature assessment of evidence, is also attributable to the wrong premises on which the high court’s reasoning is based.</p>.<p>The top court allowed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the December 2020 order of framing charge. However, it did not interfere with the decision of the trial court of discharging the accused Tiwari, from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to the commission of suicide).</p>
