Gauhati High Court
Gobinda Mondal vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 13 July, 2017
Author: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Crl. Pet. No. 127 of 2016
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
13.07.2017
Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
BB Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. for the State and Mr. A. Kundu, learned counsel for
the informant/ respondent No.2.
The petitioner, namely, Gobinda Mondal is a charge sheeted accused in Bijni Police Station Case No. 235/2013 (corresponding to GR No. 484/2013) under Sections 448/376/506 IPC and the said proceeding is presently pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) at Bijni, district-. The petitioner herein submitted that in the Chargesheet No. 134/2014 dated 28.09.2014 filed in said Bijni P.S. Case No. 235/2013, he has been shown as an absconder though police never visited his house in search of him and further, the medical report of the victim did not disclose anything regarding the sign of rape or any violence on her person. As such, the accused petitioner has filed this criminal petition praying for quashing of the Chargesheet No. 134/2014 dated 28.9.2014 filed in said Bijni P.S. Case No. 235/2013 (corresponding to GR No. 484/2013).
Perused the FIR dated 18.09.2013 lodged by the victim as well as her statement dated 04.10.2013 recorded under Section 164 CrPC wherein the victim implicated the accused/petitioner for the offences under sections 448/376/506 IPC. Though the Investigating Officer in the said Chargesheet dated 28.09.2014 pertaining to said Bijni P.S. Case No. 235/2013 had shown the accused petitioner as an absconder, but the learned SDJM, Bijni issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance. However, in spite of receiving summons from the Court of learned SDJM, Bijni in said GR Case No. 484/2013, the accused/petitioner on numerous pretexts, did not appear before him and took time on the dates fixed.
Whether the medical report reveals that there is any sign of any rape or violence on the person of the victim, can be considered only during the trial while recording evidence, both oral and documentary. A heinous and serious offence Crl. Ptn. No. 127 of 2016 Page 1 of 2 like rape is not private in nature and it has a serious impact on the society. The victim in her statement before the learned Magistrate made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly implicated the petitioner with regard to the offence alleged in said Bijni P.S. Case No. 235/2013. Further, the FIR of the said Bijni P.S. Case No. 235/2013 also reveals that prior to the said incident, in an another incident, prior to the present occurrence, the accused/petitioner molested the victim and for that, a village bichar was held about 5/6 months prior to the date of the present incident.
Considering the above, the court is of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside and quash the proceeding of the said GR Case No. 484/2013 arising out of Bijni P.S. Case No. 235/2013 registered under sections 448/376/506 IPC.
As such being devoid of merit, this criminal petition stands rejected. Consequently, the interim order passed earlier on 25.02.2016 stands vacated.
The accused/petitioner is directed to appear before the learned SDJM, Bijni in said GR Case No. 484/2013 forthwith as the trial of the said case needs to be conducted by the Court of Sessions, as Section 376 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions.
JUDGE Pb/-
Crl. Ptn. No. 127 of 2016 Page 2 of 2