Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 163 (MP)

VIKAS RUSIA v. STATE OF M. P.

2002-02-13

NARAIN SINGH

body2002
NARAIN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) ARGUMENTS heard. ( 2 ) ON 24/11/2001, First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, framed charge against this petitioner is Sessions Trial No. 138/2000, for offence punishable u/s. 376 (g) of the I. P. C. , giving rise to this revision. ( 3 ) REFERRING to the first information report, the statement of Seema, the prosecutrix, which is recorded u/s. 164, Cr. P. C. , on 16/12/1999, the affidavits sworn in by Seema so also her father Krishnapal Singh, and the medical report dated 5/12/1999, it is submitted by Shri Rajendra Singh that in the F. I. R. , the statement of Seema, the prosecutrix, recorded u/s. 164 of the Cr. P. C. , affidavit of Krishnapal Singh, father of the prosecutrix so also the affidavit of Seema, this petitioner is not alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix Seema. ( 4 ) IT is also submitted by Shri Rajendra Singh that on a consideration of the report of the three doctors, who examined the prosecutrix, also, offence of rape may be taken to have been committed on Seema and hence, this petitioner deserves to be discharge. ( 5 ) IN the F. I. R. which is recorded as Dehati Nalishi and lodged by the prosecutrix Ku. Seema at 5. 15 p. m. on 1/12/1999, in respect of alleged incident dated 1-12-1999, which is stated to have been committed at 2 p. m. , this petitioner is stated to have caught hold of Seema at the time of the alleged incident. Then, in Police statements of Ku. Seema so also her father Krishnapal Singh, which are noted to have been recorded on 3/12/1999, this petitioner is also stated to have committed rape on the prosecutrix Ku. Seema. ( 6 ) THE statements recorded u/s. 164 of the Cr. P. C. so also the affidavits of the prosecutrix and her father are not to be considered or taken into account at the stage of framing of charge, Moreso, the same cannot be weighed to disbelieve or discard the statements recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P. C. and the F. I. R. ( 7 ) SO far as report of doctors in concerned, at the stage of framing charge, the same cannot be accepted to ignore the statements recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P. C. and the F. I. R. ( 7 ) SO far as report of doctors in concerned, at the stage of framing charge, the same cannot be accepted to ignore the statements recorded u/s. 161 of the Cr. P. C. Thus, on consideration of F. I. R. , which is recorded as Dehati Nalishi and the Police statement of Seema so also her father Krishnapal Singh, the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in framing the charge against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s. 376 (g) of the I. P. C. ( 8 ) IN the result, this revision does not merit, which is accordingly rejected at the stage of motion hearing. Petition dismissed. .