Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 118 (RAJ)

Mohd. Sareef v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC., the petitioner have challenged the order dated 27.07.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 116/2005, whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 368, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Public Prosecutor for the State and the Counsel for the complainant. Perused the order impugned and challan papers as also statements of Sabba recorded by the police under Section 161, CrPC as also under Section 164, CrPC. 3. From the perusal of statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that it was co-accused Nadeem who kidnapped the prosecutrix from Jodhpur. She was taken in a bus from Jodhpur to Sikar, from Sikar to Laxmangarh in Indica Car and to Fatehpur in a Jeep and thereafter from Fatehpur to Bhalodi where the petitioners have been residing. From her statement, it appears that the moment she was taken to Bhalodi where the petitioners are residing who are parents of Nadeem, the Petitioner No. 2 threatened the girl showing her unwillingness to keep her at their house and asked her that if she stays at their house she would be sold elsewhere. Even in her statement under Section 164, CrPC also no overt act has been assigned to the petitioners. On the contrary, it has been stated that the petitioners were not willing to keep her and, therefore, she was threatened to go elsewhere, else she would be married to someone else. That clearly shows that the petitioners never intended to rather were not at all willing to keep the prosecutrix at their house even for a moment. The very essential ingredients for the offence under Section 368, IPC are that any person wrongfully conceals or confines any kidnapped or abducted person. 4. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioners wrongfully concealed or kept the prosecutrix in wrongful confinement. On the contrary, they were not at all willing to allow the prosecutrix to remain in their house for which she was asked to go elsewhere. 4. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioners wrongfully concealed or kept the prosecutrix in wrongful confinement. On the contrary, they were not at all willing to allow the prosecutrix to remain in their house for which she was asked to go elsewhere. In the circumstances therefore, even if the prosecution evidence is taken on its face value and remained un-controverted, the very essential ingredients of offence under Section 368, IPC are not made out. In the circumstances, therefore, the order framing charge qua the petitioners for the offence under Section 368, IPC cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.07.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 116/2005 to the extent framing charge for the offence under Section 368, IPC against the petitioners is hereby set aside. The petitioners are discharged of the offence under Section 368, IPC. The stay application stands disposed of .