news details |
|
|
| Court frames rape charge against father-in-law | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 23: In a significant order concerning the evidentiary value of electronic records in criminal proceedings, the Fast Track Court, Jammu, has framed charges of rape and other offences against a man accused of sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law, holding that video clips and the victim's statement prima facie disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh, while considering the chargesheet against Kulvir Singh, son of Kapoor Singh, resident of Bathera, Jammu, observed that electronic evidence could be considered at the stage of framing charges even if the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act had not been submitted along with the chargesheet.
The case arises out of FIR No. 106/2024 registered at Police Station Kanachack, Jammu, following a complaint lodged by the accused's daughter-in-law alleging repeated sexual harassment, intimidation and forcible entry into her bedroom.
According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that her father-in-law had been misbehaving with her for a considerable period and had threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed his alleged conduct to her husband or other family members.
She further alleged that the accused forcibly entered her bedroom during the night and subjected her to sexual misconduct.
In her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the prosecutrix alleged that the accused had committed rape upon her after forcibly entering her room.
The prosecution also relied upon two video clips allegedly recorded by the complainant, which were placed before the Court during arguments on charge.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra, appearing for the State, submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS, coupled with other material available on record, established a prima facie case against the accused.
He argued that sufficient material existed for framing charges under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Senior Counsel Mandeep Reen, assisted by Advocate Sanchi Gupta, appearing for the accused, strongly opposed the framing of charges, contending that the accused had been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant's husband because of an alleged family property dispute.
The defence argued that the original complaint did not contain any allegation of rape and that the accusation was introduced subsequently in the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.
It was further contended that the video clips were unclear and could not be relied upon in the absence of the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The defence accordingly sought discharge of the accused.
After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that at the stage of framing charges, the judicial assessment is confined to determining whether the material creates a strong suspicion regarding the alleged offences.
The Court emphasised that a trial judge cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution but must independently consider the broad probabilities of the case, the available evidence and apparent infirmities without conducting a mini-trial.
Examining the electronic evidence, the Court noted that the two video clips, having durations of one minute and 33 seconds and one minute and 24 seconds, respectively, were viewed during arguments on charge.
The Court found that the clips prima facie corroborated the complainant's allegations regarding the accused's presence in her private space under circumstances requiring examination during trial.
Significantly, the Court held that non-production of the certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act along with the chargesheet was not fatal to the prosecution, as the certificate could be produced subsequently during trial.
The Court further observed that discrepancies between the original complaint and the subsequent statement of the prosecutrix could not be given decisive weight at the stage of framing charges.
However, the Court declined to frame a charge under Section 352 BNS, holding that the material did not prima facie establish the necessary ingredients of the offence relating to intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace.
Finding sufficient prima facie material, the Court framed charges against Kulvir Singh under Sections 64, 75, 333 and 351(2) of the BNS, pertaining to rape, sexual harassment, house trespass and criminal intimidation.
The charges were read over and explained to the accused in open court. He denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty, claiming trial.
The Court consequently directed the prosecution to lead evidence and fixed November 30, 2026, as the next date of hearing. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
