Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 2 (RAJ)

Rajesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

1998-01-05

ARUN MADAN

body1998
Judgment Arun Madan, J.-This revision petition has been preferred before this Court against the order dated 21-8-97 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar by which, the petitioner has been charged for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 328, 376, 506, 385, 409 and 420,I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 41/97 on the basis of the FIR No. 328/96 registered with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar. 2. Thefacts which are relevant for deciding this revision petition briefly stated are that an FIR was lodged with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar by the prosecutrix Mst. Rachna Gupta on 17-6-96 with an allegation that she was appointed as a Teacher in the school owned and managed by the petitioner Rajesh Sharma. On the closure of the school by the management, it had resulted in discontinuation of the services of the prosecutrix. Smt. Shalini Sharma wife of the petitioner who was at the relevant time presiding as chair-person of a registered society namely Navodaya Samaj Kalyan Samiti and who was subsequently appointed as Vice-President of Rajasthan Samaj Kalyan Advisory Board, Jaipur for the reason that she could not spare time to look after the abovenamed society. At that time, Smt. Shalini Sharma had approached the prosecutrix Mst. Rachna Gupta with a request for taking over the charge as a chair-person of the said society but, she did not agree to the said proposal. Subsequently, an agreement was executed between Smt. Shalini Sharma and the prosecutrix-Mst. Rachna Gupta wherein, the income through subscription, received by the society by way of grant and funding received by way of publication of advertisements etc. were specified in the said agreement. It was further alleged by the prosecutrix that Smt. Shalini Sharma had pretended as if she had treated prosecutrix as her younger sister. On the fateful day i.e. the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was requested by Smt. Shalini Sharma to come and finalise the work of the said society in the night hours at her residence for the reason that she could not be called earlier on account of heavy pre-occupation and also because of her political status. On the fateful day i.e. the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was requested by Smt. Shalini Sharma to come and finalise the work of the said society in the night hours at her residence for the reason that she could not be called earlier on account of heavy pre-occupation and also because of her political status. It was further alleged that the prosecutrix was asked to come to the residence of Smt. Shalini Sharma on 9-5-95 where, she was induced to take the liquor to which she had refused and, thereafter, she was offered soft drink which she agreed to accept. Immediately after consuming the said soft drink she lost her consciousness and when she regained the same she found herself in a naked position lying on the bed besides the petitioner. When she was woken up on the following day, she had obviously presumed that an act of sexual intercourse against her consent had been committed by the petitioner. She further alleged that she was threatened by the petitioner that in case she dared to inform the police she would be done away with and this threat was conveyed to her by both petitioner as well as his wife Smt. Shalini Sharma. As per FIR, it has further been revealed that for the entire period of one year the prosecutrix had travelled for the work of the society from Jaipur to Delhi and other places to collect the donations for the Souvenir and for various other purposes. 3. It was further alleged that in the month of April, 96 grant of Rs. 3,85,000/-was sanctioned in the name of the society under two schemes. The prosecutrix tried to change the members of the society for which she was scolded by the co-accused Smt. Shalini Sharma that she should not dare to interfere with the working of the society. It is further alleged that this fact was disclosed by the prosecutrix to her brother and father, respectively who in turn had met the chair-person of the Board Smt. Sariya Khan and apprised her of the incident. 4. It is further alleged that this fact was disclosed by the prosecutrix to her brother and father, respectively who in turn had met the chair-person of the Board Smt. Sariya Khan and apprised her of the incident. 4. Soon after lodging the FIR with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar, the investigation commenced and the challan was put up against the petitioner initially for the commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(C), 328, 506, 385, 420 and 409, I.P.C. Subsequently, an additional charge-sheet was also filed against the petitioner and Smt. Shalini Sharma for the commission of offences under Sections 376, 328, 506, 385, 420 and 409, I.P.C. The charge under Section 120-B, I.P.C. was also framed By the learned Special Judge along with other substantive offences as aforesaid, 5. I haveheard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and also examined the summoned record. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the bar that the prosecutrix is a well educated person and had attained the age of majority while, the petitioner is a Post-Graduate and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had committed the above offences against the prosecutrix Smt. Rachna Gupta. He has further contended at the bar that though, initially the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376(2)(C), I.P.C. along with other substantive offences as aforesaid but, subsequently the prosecution had converted the same to Section 376, I.P.C. at a later stage on the basis of the additional charge-sheet which was filed with the trial Court having regard to the additional material which was not earlier available with the trial Court and for which the prosecution had no justification to convert the offence under Section 376(2)(C), I.P.C. to Section 376, I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the medical report suggests that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. He has further contended that the statement of the prosecutrix has not been corroborated with any independent witness and in the absence of the corroboration, the trial Court was not justified in framing the charge against the petitioner for the commission of the above offences. 6. Theabove contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been vehemently controverter by Mr. 6. Theabove contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been vehemently controverter by Mr. M. L. Goyal learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that on the basis of the material available on the record, there was no bar for the trial Court from not framing the charge against the accused for offence under Section 376, I.P.C. along with other substantive offences as referred to above and if on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded by the Investigating Officer if such charges are established then, the Court can convert the charge from Section 376(2)(C) to Section 376, I.P.C. With regard to commission of the offence under Section 409, I.P.C, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that what is required for establishing the said offence is the entrustment of the property and if this fact is established by the prosecution along with other supporting evidence which would justify the commission of offence under Section 420 I.P.C. then, there is no bar to the trial Court to frame the charge for the offence under Section 409 read with 420, I.P.C. as well. 7. Prima facie, I am of the considered opinion that at the stage of framing of the charge, if there is sufficient material on the record which justifies the commission of the offence of rape punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. and for which the statement of the prosecutrix alone is a factor to be reckoned with then, no independent corroboration is necessary in this regard in view of the law so well settled by the Apex Court. The offence of rape is such a heinous offence which does not call for any independent corroboration because the offence is committed in such a secretive manner and the circumstances in which this offence was committed as per the prosecution story are suggestive enough to establish the commission of the said offence and in my view at the stage of framing of the charge, no other independent evidence or corroboration is necessary. I am further of the view that the trial Court need not to go through exchange of letters of correspondence between the prosecutrix and the accused which is not relevant for the purpose of framing of the charge at that stage. I am further of the view that the trial Court need not to go through exchange of letters of correspondence between the prosecutrix and the accused which is not relevant for the purpose of framing of the charge at that stage. The findings recorded by the trial Court more particularly in paras 11 and 13 of its Judgment , do not call for any departure or interference by this Court in exercise of its provisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. I am fortified in my observations from the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj AIR 1997 SC 2041 : 1997 CriLJ 2248 and 1979 CriLJ 154 : AIR 1979 SC 366 ; Union of India vs. Pratfall Kr. Samal, I have examined the ratio of th aforesaid decisions. The Apex Court has clearly held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has only to consider the material with a view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or insufficiency of the ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to his conviction. I fully subscribe to the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and I am of the prima facie view that at the stage of framing of the charge only the sufficiency of material has to be looked into and no other independent corroboration or any other extraneous material should be gone into by the trial Court. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and as a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the accused is in judicial custody since 26-3-97 and the right to speedy trial is a right which is available to the accused under the Constitution of India, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Special Judge Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar to expedite the trial and for which the accused-petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the trial Court for the purpose of speedy trial of his case. It is further directed that in case there is any delay on the part of the prosecution in not expediting with the trial of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for the appropriate direction. 9. With the observations made above, the revision petition stands dismissed and finally disposed of at the admission stage itself However, the above observations shall not prejudice the defence to be put up by the accused before the trial Court. 10. The summoned record be sent back immediately.