JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has, been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated July 21, 1989 of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur by which he had framed the charges as follows : 1. Ram Singh, under sections 147, 366-A and 376(2) (g) IPC 2. Jeevan 3. Bharat 4. Lakho 5. Khubi Ram 6. Govind Ram 7. Gokul Chand 8. Preetam 9. Laxmi Devi 10. Janki, under sections 147 and 366-A IPC 11. Maya 2. On the written report of one Sh. Puran Singh, Crime No. 275/87 was registered under Sections 363 and 380 IPC at Police Station Kumehar district Bharatpur on 19.12.1987. In the said report it was stated that on 18.12.87 he was in his field while his wife and children were at his house. At about 8.30-9 PM, his son Devendra was lying on a cot while his daughter Guddi was weaving a sweater in the candle light, then all of a sudden it became dark as the candle light had extinguished. His son therefore went inside to his mother on account of fear and when his mother came with another candle she found that Guddi was not there. It was also stated in the report that she was searched in the neighbouring houses but she was not traced out. In the said report it was further stated that when he was going to lodge the report at Kumehar Police Station then at Nadbai Road, the accused petitioners, namely, Ram Singh, Jeevan, Khubi Ram, Lakho, Govind Ram, Mst. Maya, Mst. Laxmi Devi and Mst. Janki Devi met him and they were having Lathies and other weapons. They informed him that his daughter along with box of jwellery was taken away by Patta alias Bharat petitioner. They also threatened him not to lodge the report. 3. It is noteworthy that another name of Guddi is Sharda. It appears that Sharda alias Guddi was recovered from the company of the petitioner Bharat alias Patta on January 2, 1988. She was medically examined by the Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Bharatpur. On the examination, the doctor found that there was no mark of violence on any part of her body. There was no injuries on her genitals. There was no pain and tenderness in the vagina. The vagina admitted index fingure very easily and the hymen was torned. She was medically examined by the Medical Jurist, General Hospital, Bharatpur. On the examination, the doctor found that there was no mark of violence on any part of her body. There was no injuries on her genitals. There was no pain and tenderness in the vagina. The vagina admitted index fingure very easily and the hymen was torned. No dried seman stains or blood stains were found. The doctor did not give any definite opinion about the commission of rape and reserved the opinion till the chemical examination report is received. There was also an ossification test and after taking X-Ray of left elbow and left wrist, the doctor opined her age to be more than 16 years but below 18 years on January 2, 1988. The statement of Guddi was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police. In that statement she gave out that when she was weaving sweater in the candle light at about 8 or 8.30 PM then her neighbours Khubi Ram, Govind Ram, Bharat, Ram Singh and Lakho Brahmin came and was taken away at their house forcibly where the wife of Jeevan and Ram Singh and the daughters of Ram Singh were present. Then she was taken at a road side through the fields where there was one tractor. In the tractor two persons were sitting. She was then taken in the said tractor by two unknown persons and the petitioner Bharat. She further stated that in the way she was made to drink something like water on account of which she got intoxication. She was brought at Nadbai and from there she was taken to Jaipur in rail. Then she was taken to Ahmedabad and Bombay. At Bombay she was taken at some relatives of Bharat and he used to have sexual intercourse with her on every night against her consent. Then she was brought back to Bharatpur and from Bharatpur to Saver then the police recovered her. 4. It may be also stated that the statement of Haloo S/o Ram Khilari was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has also given out the same version as given by Puran Singh in the Report. He further stated that when he and Puran were return- ing to the village after making the search of Guddi then on the road, the accused Ram Singh, Jeevan, Khubi Ram, Lakho, Govind Ram, Mst. He further stated that when he and Puran were return- ing to the village after making the search of Guddi then on the road, the accused Ram Singh, Jeevan, Khubi Ram, Lakho, Govind Ram, Mst. Maya, Smt. Laxmi and Sint. Janki Brahmin, resident of village Pidi met them. Preetam was driving the tractor and he stopped the tractor in front of the tractor of Puran Singh and stated that they had made their son to run away. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the FIR it is clear that Ku. Sharda alias Guddi had left her father's house on her sweet will. According to the learned counsel it is highly improbable that if Guddi had been taken by the accused persons as per the story which has been given subsequently by the witnesses, she would not have made a hue and cry. According to the learned counsel the accused petitioner Patta alias Bharat and Ku. Sharda alias Guddi were having love affair and Guddi had gone along with Bharat after making a plan along with the ornaments and money. The learned counsel submitted that the accused persons and the members of the complainant parties are neighbours and the petitioner Bharat had developed intimacy with Sharda and they left the village voluntarily for which the relatives of both were making search putting blame on each other. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the radiological report, Sharda was opined to be above 16 years of age and below 18 years. He submitted that there can be a variation of two years so far the determination of age by a medical jurist is concerned. The learned counsel further submitted that no school certificate or birth certificate has been produced by the prosecution and a story has been developed in order to implicate all the accused persons. The learned counsel further contended that out of 11 petitioners besides Bharat, Lakho, Khubi Ram, Covind Ram and Gokul Chand are his real brothers. Ram Singh is his uncle, Smt. Laxmi and Janki are her sisters and Smt. Maya is his mother. According to the learned counsel it is highly improbable that all these petitioners would have joined to kidnap/abduct Ku. Sharda who was their neighbour in such a manner. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the above arguments. Ram Singh is his uncle, Smt. Laxmi and Janki are her sisters and Smt. Maya is his mother. According to the learned counsel it is highly improbable that all these petitioners would have joined to kidnap/abduct Ku. Sharda who was their neighbour in such a manner. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the above arguments. It is true that as per the radiological report Ku. Sharda was opined to be above 16 years but below 18 years of age. It is also true that no birth or school certificate have been produced by the prosecution about her age. It is also true that the medical opinion about the age is only an estimate and there can be a variation of two years on either side. It is also true that the accused persons and the members of the complainant party are residents of the same village and they may be neighbours also. It may also be true that the petitioner Bharat and Ku. Sharda alias Guddi might be having some affairs with each other and she might have voluntarily left her parents house along with the ornaments and money. It is also true that Ku. Sharda had travelled with the petitioner Bharat in rail and visited several cities. But at this stage no definite opinion can be given by the Court, as all these facts shall be considered by the Trial Court after recording the evidence. At present we have to take the prosecution case as given out in the report as well as in the statements. From the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ku. Guddi alias Sharda it appears that Khubi Ram, Govind Ram, Ram Singh and Lakho petitioners had kidnapped her from her house. So far the commission of rape is concerned, the allegation is only against the petitioner Bharat. This statement was recorded by the police just after the recovery of Guddi alias Sharda. In the FIR there is no mention that all the accused persons had come there at the house of the complainant when the candle light extinguished and the mother of Guddi came where Guddi was earlier sitting but did not find her there. Thus, from the FIR it does not transpire that a number of persons had come and they had abducted Ku. Guddi alias Sharda. 7. It is true that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ku. Thus, from the FIR it does not transpire that a number of persons had come and they had abducted Ku. Guddi alias Sharda. 7. It is true that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ku. Guddi alias Sharda had tried to implicate other persons also even for having sexual intercourse against her will. That statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on the face of the record appears to be an after thought and otherwise also quite improbable. But without expressing any final opinion about the veracity of the various statements of Ku. Sharda alias Guddi, but taking her first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on its face value as well as the version given in the FIR, I am of the view that the accused petitioner Bharat Singh alone could have been charged under Sections 147, 366-A and 376 IPC while the petitioners Khubi Ram, Govind Ram, Ram Singh and Ladho could be charged for the offences under Sections 147 and 366-A IPC. 8. Consequently, I partly allow this petition. All the charges framed against the petitioners Smt. Laxmi Devi, Smt. Janki Devi and Smt. Maya Devi, Jeevan, Gokul Chand and Preetam are quashed and they are discharged. 9. The charges under section 147, 366-A and 376 (2) (g) IPC against petitioner Bharat are maintained. Similarly, charges under section 147 & 366-A IPC against the petitioners Khubi Ram, Govind Ram, Ram Singh and Lakho are maintained, but the charge under section 376(2) IPC against them is quashed.Petition partly allowed. *******