Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Rape Case, Holds Offences Under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC Form Same Transaction for Joint Trial Under Section 220 CrPC. The Court set aside the discharge of the accused for lack of territorial jurisdiction and directed trial for all offences together.

Admin

2026-05-18 12:00:45

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the High Court's order upholding the discharge of the accused-respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 376 IPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The case arose from a complaint by the appellant (Ms. P) that after her engagement to the accused on 13.11.2015 in Chamoli, Uttarakhand, she was invited to Delhi in February 2016 where the accused had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes on the false promise of marriage. Subsequently, the accused demanded Rs. 25 lakhs and threatened her when the demand was not met. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to FIR No. 3 of 2017 at Police Station Gairsain, Chamoli. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge discharged the accused under Section 376 IPC for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the rape occurred in Delhi and was not part of the same transaction as the other offences. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, treating the discharge as an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge and High Court erred in law. The Court observed that the acts of engagement, sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage, demand of money, and subsequent threats are so interconnected as to form the same transaction under Section 220 CrPC. Therefore, the Sessions Court at Chamoli had territorial jurisdiction to try all offences together. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial for all offences under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Same Transaction - Sections 220, 177, 179 CrPC, 1973 - The question was whether the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC (occurring at Delhi) and the offences of criminal intimidation and insult under Sections 504, 506 IPC (occurring in Uttarakhand) form part of the same transaction for joint trial. The Supreme Court held that the acts of engagement, sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage, demand of money, and subsequent threats are so interconnected as to form the same transaction, and thus the Sessions Court at Chamoli had territorial jurisdiction to try all offences together under Section 220 CrPC. The discharge of the accused for lack of territorial jurisdiction was set aside. (Paras 3, 5-8)

B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge vs. Acquittal - Section 227 CrPC, 1973 - The High Court erroneously treated the discharge of the accused under Section 376 IPC due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as an acquittal. The Supreme Court clarified that discharge for want of jurisdiction is not an acquittal on merits and does not bar retrial. (Para 4)

C) Criminal Law - Rape - False Promise of Marriage - Section 376 IPC, 1860 - The allegations that the accused engaged the victim, called her to Delhi, had sexual intercourse against her wishes on the pretext of marriage, and later refused to marry and threatened her, constitute a continuing course of conduct. The offence of rape in such circumstances is not a standalone act but part of a series of connected acts forming the same transaction. (Paras 5-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the offence under Section 376 IPC and the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC 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 Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and High Court, and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial for all offences under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC in accordance with law.

Law Points

Territorial jurisdiction
Same transaction
Joint trial
Section 220 CrPC
Section 376 IPC
Section 504 IPC
Section 506 IPC
Discharge
Acquittal

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (6) 15

Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 6548 of 2019)

2022-05-06

Dinesh Maheshwari

Ms. P

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against order of High Court upholding discharge of accused for offence under Section 376 IPC on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought setting aside of the discharge order and direction for trial of all offences together.

Filing Reason

The appellant alleged that the accused engaged her, called her to Delhi, had sexual intercourse against her wishes on false promise of marriage, demanded money, and threatened her.

Previous Decisions

Sessions Judge discharged accused under Section 376 IPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction; High Court dismissed revision petition treating discharge as acquittal.

Issues

Whether the offence under Section 376 IPC and offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC form part of the same transaction for joint trial under Section 220 CrPC. Whether the Sessions Court at Chamoli had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 376 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that all acts were part of the same transaction and should be tried together. Respondent argued that the rape occurred in Delhi and was not a continuing offence, thus the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The acts of engagement, sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage, demand of money, and subsequent threats are so interconnected as to form the same transaction under Section 220 CrPC, and therefore the Sessions Court at the place of engagement and threats has territorial jurisdiction to try all offences together.

Judgment Excerpts

The question as to whether the said offence under Section 376 IPC and the other offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC 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 Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The impugned order of the High Court is a cryptic one, where neither the facts nor the relevant questions of law have gone into appropriate consideration; and the case of 'discharge' because of territorial jurisdiction has been treated by the High Court as that of 'acquittal'.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gairsain, Chamoli. FIR No. 3 of 2017 was registered, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge discharged the accused under Section 376 IPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.