Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar vs State & Anr on 27 February, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Revision No. 654 / 2016
Rakesh Kumar S/o Ghisu Lal, By caste Vaishnav, Resident of
Tinvari, P.S. Mathania, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Babu Lal S/o Sugna Ram, By caste Rao, Resident of Kanodiya
Purohitan, P.S. Dechu, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagat Tatiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi - PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 27/02/2017 This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.1/2016, whereby it has ordered for framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) IPC read with Section 5(G)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act').
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no iota of evidence available against the petitioner to suggest that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with co- accused Maghraj had entered into the house of the prosecutrix, (2 of 3) [CRLR-654/2016] whereas as per the prosecution story co-accused Maghraj committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is contended that from the naksha-mauka, prepared by the police, it is clear that the petitioner was found around 200 feet far from the house of the prosecutrix and from this fact itself it is clear that there is no meeting of mind of the petitioner and the co-accused Maghraj and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had a common intention with him to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. It is also contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and in the absence of any material available against him, the trial court has grossly erred in framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) IPC read with Section 5(G)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that from the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, it is clear that the petitioner was apprehended by the relatives of the prosecutrix near her house. It is also submitted that there is material available on record which suggests that the petitioner had accompanied co-accused Maghraj, who committed rape upon a minor girl. It is contended that when the petitioner accompanied co-accused Maghraj to the house of the prosecutrix, it can be gathered that both of them had common intention to commit the rape upon the prosecutrix. Learned Public Prosecutrix has, therefore, argued that there is no force in this criminal revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully (3 of 3) [CRLR-654/2016] scrutinized the record of the case.
As per the prosecution story, the petitioner was apprehended outside the house of the prosecutrix, whereas the co-accused Maghraj was apprehended in the house of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded during the course of police investigation under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly alleged that co- accused Maghraj has committed rape upon her on the day of the incident.
As per the school record, the prosecutrix is minor. When the evidence of this effect is available on record that the petitioner had accompanied co-accused Maghraj to the house of the prosecutrix and co-accused Maghraj thereafter committed rape upon the prosecutrix in her house, in my opinion the trial court has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D) IPC read with Section 5(G)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Hence, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J. Abhishek Kumar S.No.180