| Headnote |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 177-180, 184, 218, 220 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376, 504, 506 – Allegations against respondent No.2-accused consisting of offences of distinct nature, one set of allegations is of the offence of rape at Delhi (s. 376, IPC) and the other set of allegations is of hurling abuses and extending threat on phone calls received by the appellant at her village in District Chamoli (ss. 504, 506 IPC), if could be said to be ‘one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction’ for the purpose of trial together in terms of s. 220, CrPC – Held: On 13.11.2015, the appellant and the respondent no. 2 were engaged for matrimonial alliance at their village Dangidhar, Tehsil Gairsain, District Chamoli but, the proposal of marriage did not materialize – However, the alleged acts of sexual relationship took place at Delhi in the months of February and March, 2016 – The other alleged acts had been of the respondent no. 2 hurling abuses and extending threats in or around the month of November, 2016, which the appellant received over telephone at her village – The acts in question were neither proximate in time nor proximate in place; they were not of continuity either– It is difficult to find continuity of actions and community of purpose or design in two different acts leading to two different set of offences, i.e., one u/s. 376 and the other under ss. 504/506– Thus, on facts, the alleged offence u/s. 376 and the other offences u/ss. 504 and 506 do not fall within the ambit of ‘one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction’ for the purpose of trial together in terms of s. 220 CrPC – Thus, the Sessions Judge, Chamoli rightly discharged the respondent no. 2 of the offence u/s. 376 for want of territorial jurisdiction.Constitution of India – Article 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 300 – Allegations against the respondent No. 2-accused were of offence u/s. 376 as allegedly committed in Delhi and u/ss. 504 and 506 IPC where the respondent no. 2 allegedly hurled abuses and extended threats which the appellant received over telephone at her village in Chamoli, Uttarakhand – Sessions Judge, Chamoli while discharging the respondent no.2 of the offence u/s. 376 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction transferred the matter to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gairsain, District Chamoli for trial of the respondent No. 2 in relation to the remaining offences u/ss. 504 and 506 IPC wherein respondent no.2 was acquitted – Held: Respondent No. 2 having gone through the trial in relation to offences u/ss. 504 and 506 IPC and having been acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts – Any such process would be in blatant disregard of the settled principles which disapprove double jeopardy and are precisely contained in Article 20(2), Constitution of India as also s. 300, CrPC –Protection u/clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India is clear and unambiguous.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 461(1) – Segregation of charge of the offence u/s. 376, IPC from offences u/ss. 504, 506 IPC – Accused-respondent No. 2 acquitted of offences u/ss. 504, 506 IPC – Plea of State that the segregation of charge of the offence u/s. 376 IPC had been erroneous and because of this error, the matter went to trial before the Judicial Magistrate for the offences u/ss. 504 and 506 IPC though the entire matter ought to be tried in the Court of Sessions – Held: Rejected – There had been no error in segregation of the charge of the offence u/s. 376 IPC – This line of submissions, questioning the validity of the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, remains baseless and is rather misplaced.Words & Phrases – “same transaction”– Discussed – Tests to be applied for determining the question as to whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. |
