Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 24 (CHH)

SANTOSH SHARMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2003-02-22

L.C.BHADOO

body2003
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. :- 1. The accused/applicant Santosh Sharma has preferred this Criminal Revision being aggrieved by the order dated 29-7-2002 passed by the learned Special Judge of SC & ST, Ambikapur, by which the learned Special Judge has framed the charges against the accused/applicant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, under Sections 323 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the accused/applicant is that the complainant Smt. Geeta Tirky, herself has stated in her statement that she was residing with the accused/applicant as his wife therefore, the offence under Section 376 is not made out and according to her statement no offence is made out. Therefore, by allowing the revision charges framed against the accused/applicant be quashed. 4. On the other hand learned Dy. Government Advocate supported the order of the Special Judge. 5. A perusal of the First Information Report and the statement of Smt. Geeta Tirky and Smt. Phoolmati, reveals that five years prior to the statement of complainant she went to the shop of accused/applicant Santosh Sharma for purchasing the items and since then she was knowing the accused/applicant and thereafter he started coming to her residence and one day the accused/ applicant said to the complainant that since her husband has deserted her. The accused/applicant wants to keep the complainant as his wife and by alluring the complainant with the promise that he would keep the complainant as his wife committed rape on the complainant and from that day they were living as husband and wife. After some time she started living in the house of Sanju Singh. In that house also the accused/applicant used to come and had intercourse with her on many times. Thereafter she changed the quarter and started residing in Sattipara. There also the accused used to come and had intercourse with her. Once the accused/applicant demanded from her Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of starting a hotel and she gave, that money. Thereafter the accused/applicant Santosh Sharma kept one Madhu at his residence and deserted the complainant. When on 4-3-2002 the complainant went to demand her money and asked the accused why he has deserted her. Once the accused/applicant demanded from her Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of starting a hotel and she gave, that money. Thereafter the accused/applicant Santosh Sharma kept one Madhu at his residence and deserted the complainant. When on 4-3-2002 the complainant went to demand her money and asked the accused why he has deserted her. On this the accused/applicant replied that it his choice to keep her as his wife or desert her and he said that you being a tribal girl you cannot do anything against him and he will not keep her as his wife and after saying this accused/ applicant started beating the complainant by shoe. The complainant is a poor Scheduled Tribe girl and by misusing her in that position by enticing her, he has exploited her and now he has deserted her. 6. A perusal of the statement of Smt. Geeta Tirky, prima facie shows that the accused/applicant by giving allurement of marriage had intercourse with the complainant many times. The accused/applicant on 4-3-2002 voluntarily caused simple injury to the complainant and also by using the words intimidated her and knowing fully well that Geeta Tirky is a Scheduled Tribe girl and by misusing her position, he exploited her sexually and by committing rape with the complainant. The accused/applicant committed the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more and that too fully knowing that she is a member of Scheduled Tribe. Thus he committed the offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. 7. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the charges framed against the accused/applicant are prima facie made out on the basis of the evidence and as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.B. Johari and Others• "if prima facie case is made out charge has to be framed. It is not necessary to appreciate the evidence at the stage of framing the charge." 8. In other case Munna Devi Vs. S.B. Johari and Others• "if prima facie case is made out charge has to be framed. It is not necessary to appreciate the evidence at the stage of framing the charge." 8. In other case Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan2 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Revisional powers cannot be exercised in a routine and causal manner - Recourse to such powers for quashing the charges can be taken only if there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge where no offence is being made out against the accused considering the entire facts stated in the FIR. In revision, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence in the manner the trial court and the appellate Court are required to do." 9. In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the evidence available on record and the facts mentioned in the FIR, I am of the opinion that the learned Special Judge has not committed any illegality & irregularity by framing the charges and therefore, this revision is without merit and force same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. However, before parting with the order, it is made clear that the trial Court while passing the final judgment shall not be influenced or otherwise, by any of the observation made in this order. Revision Dismissed.