Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 11 (CHH)

ABDUL KADIR SIDDIQUI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2001-01-18

R.S.GARG

body2001
R. S. GARG. J. ( 1 ) - By this petition under Sections 397/401 of Cr. P. C. the petitioners seek to challenge the correctness validity and propriety of the order dated 1-8-2000 passed in Sessions Trial. No. 211/99 by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Balod (Durg ). ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that when the prosecutrix Preeti Pummi was going from one place to another, a Jeep stopped near her. Applicant No. 1 Abdul Kadir Siddiqui alighted from the Jeep gagged the mouth of the girt and after holding her neck took her away in the Jeep. At that point of time the driver of the Jeep required the accused Abdul Kadir to conduct himself properly, on which applicant No. 1 and applicant No: 2 threatened the said driver and required him to mind to his own business: ( 3 ) AFTER making the investigation the police filed the challan and the committal Court finding that there was prima facie evidence to connect the applicants with the alleged crime, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Court after hearing the parties found present to be a fit case for framing charges. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that as the investigation was lop sided and if the evidence is seen as it is in its true perspective it would clearly show that present is a case of elopement and not of kidnapping. According to him, from the statements of some of the witnesses, it would clearly appear that the girl of her own, appeared before certain persons, informed them that she was ready to profess Islam and was ready to marry the applicant No. 1. He submits that on the face of these statements of the other persons, the applicants deserve to be discharged. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. S. B. Johari and others. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. S. B. Johari and others. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. ( 7 ) IN the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have relied upon certain earlier judgments of the Supreme Court to observe that whether at the stage of framing charges, the trial Court should marshal the material available on the record of the case as he would do on the conclusion of the trial. In the said matter the Supreme Court placed a reliance on the observations made in the matter of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya. I have gone through that judgment also. The Supreme Court has observed in the matter of Niranjan Singh (supra) that if the evidence available in case diary is simply raising some suspicion against the applicant and on prima facie satisfaction, the Judge is of the opinion that no offence is made out then they would be justified in discharging the accused. The Supreme Court has further observed that at the stage of framing charges, the trial Court is not required to marshal the evidence as it is required to do at the time of final judgment. The question placed for consideration before this Court is whether the evidence as available in the case diary and filed with the challan, if is taken as it is, would it make, out a case for trial of the accused. ( 8 ) IN the matter of State of M. P. (Supra), the Supreme Court has observed the under while the Court is considering the question of charge, it is not required to marshal the evidence available in the case diary but is simply required to see whether a prima facie offence is made out or not. Apart from this, every case would depend upon its own facts. Apart from this, every case would depend upon its own facts. True, it is that some of the witnesses have made certain statements in favour of the accused persons that the girl had appeared before them and informed them that she was ready to profess Islam, but at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that the girl is given an opportunity to say whether those statements of those witnesses are true or not. A perusal of the statement of Ku. Preeti would clearly show that she was forcibly kidnapped. If argument of Shri Tiwari is accepted then this Court will have to reject the statements of Preeti and will have to accept the correctness, validity and authenticity of all the statements of those witnesses who have spoken in favour of the present applicants. If that is done at this stage not only it would be contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court but would also violate the provisions of law. ( 9 ) IT would be the duty of the Court to enquire from Ku. Preeti as to whether she appeared before those persons and agreed to profess Islam. So long as the prosecutrix herself does not say something in favour of the accused or after appreciating the evidence which is yet to be brought on record, the Court comes to the conclusion that present is a case of consent or the statements of the prosecutrix are shrouded with the clouds of doubt, it would not be possible for any Court to reject the prosecution case in toto at this stage. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing the parties, I do not consider present to be a fit case for discharging the accused. The petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .