Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 821 (RAJ)

Pooja @ Gomti v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-09

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.03.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short the trial Court hereinafter) whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 63, 366 and 120-B IPC, Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charge, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned. I have carefully gone through the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161, CrPC, as also Section 164, CrPC. 3. The allegation against the present petitioner is that she asked the prosecutrix to go with co-accused Mangal and Pappu Bihari saying that she has paid money to them. Thereafter it is said that co-accused Mangal caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix and took her in a city-bus. Other co-accused Pappu also accompanied them. The allegation of rape is against co-accused Mangal. From the statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the very essential ingredients for the offence under Section 120-B, IPC are not made out. So far as offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC are concerned, as against the petitioner, there is no allegation that the petitioner kidnapped the victim nor there is evidence that the petitioner kidnapped or abducted the victim with intend that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Thus, the very essential ingredients of the offences charged with so far as the present petitioner is concerned, are not made out. In the circumstances, therefore, there is no material to presume that the petitioner committed the offences for which she has been charged. Even if the evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution in the trial remain uncontroverted, no conviction can be based on such evidence. Thus, the order impugned framing charge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Even if the evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution in the trial remain uncontroverted, no conviction can be based on such evidence. Thus, the order impugned framing charge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 10.03.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh is set aside qua petitioner Pooja @ Gomti. The petitioner is discharged of the offences charged with. Stay petition also stands disposed of .