TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Quashes Charges in Incest Case, Stresses Child Witness Protection</h1> <h3>SATISH MEHRA Versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION</h3> SATISH MEHRA Versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION - 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 197, 1996 (9) SCC 766, 1996 (7) JT 6, 1996 (5) SCALE 523 Issues Involved:1. Allegations of incestuous sexual abuse by the husband.2. Jurisdiction and investigation of the allegations.3. Framing of charges by the Sessions Court.4. Consideration of evidence and materials at the stage of framing charges.5. Impact of trial on the child witness.Summary:1. Allegations of Incestuous Sexual Abuse:The wife accused her husband of incestuous sexual abuse of their daughter, Nikita. The allegations were initially investigated by the United States police, who found them to be untrue. The wife later filed a complaint in India, leading to the registration of an FIR for offences u/s 354 and 498-A of the IPC, with Section 376 added later.2. Jurisdiction and Investigation:The complaint filed in the United States was dismissed due to lack of evidence. Upon returning to India, the wife filed another complaint with the CAW Cell, New Delhi, which was closed for want of jurisdiction. A subsequent complaint led to the registration of a case at Greater Kailash Police Station.3. Framing of Charges by the Sessions Court:The Sessions Judge framed charges u/s 354 and 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC against the appellant. The first count was for outraging the modesty of his minor daughter, and the second count was for attempting to commit rape.4. Consideration of Evidence and Materials:The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must determine if there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding' against the accused u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court can consider materials produced by the accused if they might affect the sustainability of the case. The Sessions Judge missed certain crucial aspects, including the incredulous nature of the accusations and the findings of the New York police investigation.5. Impact of Trial on the Child Witness:The court expressed concern about the traumatic impact on the child witness if subjected to cross-examination involving sensitive matters. Given the lack of credible evidence and the potential harm to the child's development, the court found no sufficient ground to proceed to trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings and the charges framed by the Sessions Judge, discharging the appellant. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary trials that could harm the involved parties, especially when the evidence is insufficient to support the charges.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
