Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 342 (RAJ)

Manju v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-02

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.04.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 1/2004, whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376/109, IPC, and in the alternative, under Section 120-B, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and the Challan papers. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence either of abetment to commit the offence or criminal conspiracy against the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, even if the evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution during trial of the case remains uncontroverted, still prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State could not point out any specific evidence which may prima facie make out the essential ingredients of the offences for which the petitioner has been charged. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was the Mate (labour supervisor) for the work under the Drought Relief Scheme at Bijaliyawas Talab. The prosecutrix was one of the labourers. Accused Dilip Singh, at the relevant time, was the Sarpanch of the village. It is alleged that it was the petitioner who sent the prosecutrix, a labourer, for doing labour work at the house of accused Dilip Singh, the then Sarpanch. The allegation further goes to show that co-accused Dilip Singh, the then Sarpanch, subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse. Thereafter, for months together, it is alleged that co-accused Dilip Singh committed repeated sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix 6. Prima facie, there is absolutely no evidence that the present petitioner instigated the co-accused to do anything or to commit rape or to have a sexual intercourse against the will and without the consent of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, for months together, it is alleged that co-accused Dilip Singh committed repeated sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix 6. Prima facie, there is absolutely no evidence that the present petitioner instigated the co-accused to do anything or to commit rape or to have a sexual intercourse against the will and without the consent of the prosecutrix. The very essential ingredient for constituting an offence of abatement under Section 107, IPC is that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. In the instant case, neither there is any evidence that the petitioner instigated to do anything to co-accused Dilip Singh, nor engaged with him in any conspiracy for doing of sexual intercourse by co-accused Dilip Singh with the prosecutrix. Even there is no evidence that the petitioner intentionally aided, by any illegal act or illegal omission, the commission of the sexual intercourse by co-accused Dilip Singh with the prosecutrix. According to the version of the prosecutrix herself , she was subjected to sexual intercourse by Dilip Singh for four to five months but she did not make any complaint thereto for such a long period to any one. It was not that on subsequent occasions, the prosecutrix went to co-accused Dilip Singh or the co-accused came to the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse on being abetted, aided or instigated by the petitioner. The very essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy, as envisaged under Section 120-B, IPC are that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. In the instant case, prima facie there is no evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce that the petitioner agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the trial Court fell in error in framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences noticed above. 7. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the trial Court fell in error in framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences noticed above. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.04.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 1/2004, to the extent of framing charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376/109, IPC, and in the alternative, under Section 120-B, IPC, is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the said offences and the proceedings against her stand quashed. The stay petition also stands disposed of .