New Delhi [India], April 13 : A Delhi Court has decided to take cognizance of the alleged rape of an Afghan woman by an Army Major.
The Delhi court took cognizance after considering the video of the marriage solmnised and other material on record. The alleged offence was committed by the accused when he was posted as an army doctor in Afghstan. After converting to Islam, he solemnised his marriage with the complainant in November 2006 and established sexual relations with her. However, he was already married and had a family in India.
Metropolitan Magistrate Sonika of Karkardooma Court after hearing the submissions of both the parties and material on record opined that the accused should also be tried for the offence of rape.
"Thus, this court agrees with the contention raised by the Counsel for the complainant and is of opinion that the accused should also be tried for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC in addition to other offences," the Magistrate said in the order of April 11.
As the offence u/s 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of session, the present case needs to be committed, the court said.
After supplying the copy of the complaint alongwith other documents and the copy
of pre-summoning evidence to the accused, he listed the matter for scrutiny of documents on April 25.
The Court said that perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had alleged that the accused had entered into sexual intercourse with her.
"Perusal of the record further reveals that the accused had admitted the subsistence of his marriage with some other person at the time of the alleged offence," the Magistrate noted in the order.
The court also took note of the genuineness of the video CD placed on record by the complainant.
"Further, the complainant had placed on record the CD containing the video of the marriage solemnization function between her and the accused and the genuineness of the same was established by FSL examination," the Magistrate said.
The Complainant, an Afghan woman had approached the court through advocate Ravinder Gadia with a complaint case filed against the accused Chandra Shekhar Pant alias, Himat Khan.
The complainant alleged that the accused married the complainant during the subsistence of his first marriage in Afghstan, by converting to Islam as per Muslim rites.
At the time of the solemnization of marriage, the accused was present in Afghstan under an official posting.
The accused had not disclosed the fact regarding his first marriage to the complainant at the time of solemnization of marriage with the complainant and the complainant was informed about the same when the accused had returned to India on the pretext of official duty, it was further alleged.
The court had summoned the accused pre-summoning evidence, for an offence related to bigamy under sections 494/495/496 IPC. After that, on the appearance of the accused, the pre-charge evidence was led and the arguments on the charge were heard.
Counsel for the complainant submitted that there is sufficient material on record to frame against the accused u/s 494/495/496 IPC and additionally, u/s 376 IPC as the accused had committed sexual intercourse with the complainant, whereas the consent was given by the complainant under the impression that the accused is her husband. She, thereby prays to commit the present case to Session Court for trial, the court noted.
Per contra, the Counsel for the accused argued that the present court has no jurisdiction to deal with the present case as the alleged offence was committed in Afghstan and the complainant was aware that the accused may be found in Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand, wherein the complainant had filed a complaint case but the same did not proceed by the complainant.
It was further argued that the accused should be discharged in the present case, counsel argued.
The court, on the basis of the judgement passed by the superior court, said, " Thus, for an offence committed by a citizen of India outside India, the court where the accused has been found will have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence."
In the present case, the accused has appeared in the present court on the issuance of summons, thus, in view of the aforesaid case law, this court has a jurisdiction to deal in the present case, the court said.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor