Delhi trial for rape, bigamy in Afghanistan
The Afghan woman alleged that she came to know about the officer’s first marriage when he returned to India on the “pretext of official duty”
A Delhi court has ruled that an Army Major can be tried in an Indian court under alleged charges of bigamy and rape that he had allegedly committed when he was posted in Afghanistan.
Metropolitan Magistrate Sonika of Karkardooma District Court cited a Delhi high court order to establish that an Indian court has the jurisdiction to conduct the trial in such a case.
Citing the judgment in the Lalitha Lakshmanan versus CBI, the magistrate observed that for an offence committed by a citizen of India outside India, the court where the accused has been “found”, either appearing voluntarily pursuant to issue of summons or is brought before the court involuntarily in execution of warrants, will have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence.
The court made the observation while hearing a case filed by an Afghan woman who had alleged that the army officer married her in 2006 by converting to Islam, when he was posted in Afghanistan, and did not reveal that the was already married.
The Afghan woman alleged that she came to know about the officer’s first marriage when he returned to India on the “pretext of official duty”.
The counsel for the woman argued that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges of bigamy and rape against the accused as he had committed sexual intercourse with the complainant when she had given consent for it under the impression that the accused is her husband. The officer’s lawyer, however, contended that the court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the case as the offence was committed in another country.
After hearing submissions by both the sides, the court observed that the accused should be tried for the offence under Section 376 (Punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in addition to the other offences of bigamy under Sections 494 (Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife), 495 (Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted) and 496 (Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage).
The court has listed the matter for scrutiny of documents and further proceedings on April 25.