Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Fajal Mohmad vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:11824]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 53/2026
Fajal Mohmad S/o Ramjan, Aged About 25 Years, Ranglarajpur,
Firojpur, Mewat, Hariyana, Currently Residing In Mohangarh
District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Anita D/o Jala Ram, Mohangarh District Jaisalmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat,Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 03/02/2026 Date on which Order is Reserved : 03/02/2026 Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order Date of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 By the Court-
Grievance of the Case :
1. The instant revision petition is filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual (Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:04:14 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:34:56 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11824] (2 of 7) [CRLR-53/2026] Offences Act, 2012, in Special Sessions Case No. 12/2025 arising out of FIR No. 42/2025 titled State vs. Fajal Mohammad & Ors., whereby the learned trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 64(2), 70(1), 75(2), 78(2), 87, 238(b), 241, 351(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as under Sections 3/4, 5(L)/6 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Facts of the Case
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision petition are that on 05.08.2025 an FIR came to be registered at the instance of the prosecutrix namely Anita, alleging that the accused Fazal Mohammad, originally a resident of Ranglarajpur, Firozpur, Jhirka (Haryana) and presently residing at Village Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer, used to frequently roam near her house and gradually developed acquaintance with her. It was alleged that on 14.02.2023, when her parents had gone out of the village, the accused called her to meet near the bushes behind her house and allegedly committed rape upon her and also took photographs and videos, threatening that the same would be made viral if she disclosed the incident to anyone. It was further alleged that thereafter the accused repeatedly (Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:04:14 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:34:56 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11824] (3 of 7) [CRLR-53/2026] contacted her and allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her on several occasions.
3. It was further alleged in the FIR that the prosecutrix was married on 08.06.2025 and subsequently, on 27.07.2025, when she had come to her parental home at Village Mohangarh, the accused Fazal Mohammad came near her house and threatened her to contact him. It was alleged that on the following day she was called outside the house and was forcibly taken in a car by certain persons, namely Kar Mohammad, Sabir Khan, Qurban Khan and others, and brought to a room where the accused Fazal Mohammad allegedly committed rape upon her. After registration of the FIR, the police conducted investigation, recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and filed charge-sheet before the competent court. Thereafter, the learned Special Court (POCSO), Jaisalmer, vide order dated 11.11.2025 framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 64(2), 70(1), 75(2), 78(2), 87, 238(B), 241, 351(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, under Sections 3/4, 5(L)/ 6 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), (ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which has been assailed by the petitioner through the present revision petition.
4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:04:14 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:34:56 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11824] (4 of 7) [CRLR-53/2026] Observations
5. Upon a careful consideration of the material available on record as well as the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Court, this Court finds that the allegations set out in the FIR, the statements of the prosecutrix recorded during investigation, and the overall evidentiary material collected by the investigating agency do prima facie disclose the ingredients attracting charges under Sections 64(2), 70(1), 75(2), 78(2), 87, 238(b), 241, 351(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as also under Sections 3/4, 5(L)/6 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The specific allegations of repeated sexual assault upon the minor prosecutrix, the acts of abduction in concert with co- accused persons, the alleged deletion and destruction of electronic evidence, the purported criminal intimidation, and the threats to make private videos viral, when taken at their face value constitute sufficient material for the learned trial court to legitimately arrive at a prima facie satisfaction regarding the existence of grounds for framing charges for the first twelve offences. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required only to ascertain whether the prosecution material, if unrebutted, is capable of supporting the accusations; proof to the standard of conviction is not required. In that limited jurisdiction, this Court finds no legal infirmity in the trial court's decision insofar as it concerns (Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:04:14 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:34:56 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11824] (5 of 7) [CRLR-53/2026] Charges No. 1 to 12, as the allegations therein are supported by statements and circumstances which, at this preliminary stage, cannot be discarded.
6. However, in respect of Charges No. 13 and 14, which pertain to the offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this Court finds that the learned trial court has not recorded any prima facie satisfaction on a foundational requirement mandated by law namely, the existence of material demonstrating that the offence was committed against the prosecutrix on the ground that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. A mere reference to her caste status or the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, without any accompanying allegation that the accused acted with caste- based motive, intention, or knowledge, is not sufficient for invoking the penal provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The FIR, the statements, and the charge-sheet material placed before the Court do not reveal any assertion that the alleged acts of sexual assault or abduction were committed due to the prosecutrix being a member of the Scheduled Tribe community. In the absence of such essential averments, a prima facie case for attracting Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)
(ii) and 3(2)(v) is not made out at this stage.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:04:14 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:34:56 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11824] (6 of 7) [CRLR-53/2026]
7. It is also well settled that while the SC/ST Act must be applied in its full vigour where its ingredients are satisfied, its penal consequences cannot be invoked mechanically without the existence of specific material indicating caste- based targeting. In the present case, no such material is forthcoming from the prosecution record as it presently stands. The learned trial court appears to have presumed the applicability of these provisions solely on the basis of the prosecutrix's caste identity, without examining whether the allegations satisfy the statutory pre-conditions prescribed for these particular offences. Such an omission goes to the root of the matter and warrants reconsideration by the learned Special Court. This Court, therefore, finds it appropriate to remit the issue relating to Charges No. 13 and 14 to the learned trial court for fresh examination in accordance with law, after considering whether the mandatory ingredients for invocation of the SC/ST Act are satisfied on the basis of the material on record.
8. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition deserves to be partly allowed. The order dated 11.11.2025 framing Charges No. 1 to 12 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is hereby upheld and sustained. However, the portion of the impugned order pertaining to Charges No. 13 and 14 under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned (Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:04:14 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:34:56 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:11824] (7 of 7) [CRLR-53/2026] Special Court for a fresh decision on the question of framing of these charges, after due consideration of the statutory requirements and the material available on record. The learned trial court shall pass a reasoned order thereon, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, within a reasonable period.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J 7-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 08:04:14 PM) (Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 08:34:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)