Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1132 (MP)

Bablu @ Mahendra v. State of M. P.

2010-11-15

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2010
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under sections 397/401 of CrPC filed by the petitioner/accused person is directed against the impugned order on charge dated 9th August, 2010; whereby he has been charged for offences under sections 376/450/120-B/347/363 and 366-A of IPC. 2. Petitioner along with this petition had filed copy of the challan and other relevant documents supplied to him by the trial Court. 3. Arguments have been heard and the record has also been perused. 4. The complaint, on the basis of which, FIR in question was registered against the petitioner was lodged by the prosecutrix on 6th March, 2010. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has not been identified by the prosecutrix in the TIP held for his identification. The statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 of CrPC were also not got recorded. The prosecutrix admittedly did not know the petitioner/accused person prior to the date of alleged occurrence. 5. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against the petitioner to show that he was the doer of the alleged act of sexual assault on the prosecutrix. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken me through the record to show that there is no whisper on record to support incriminating material against the petitioner either in the form of statement of witnesses under section 161 of CrPC or of any other nature collected by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 6. On being asked Mr. Vishal Mishra, learned Govt. Advocate, could not point out any incriminating evidence against the petitioner on record which may connect him with the alleged offences for which he has been charged. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be proceeded for trial for the offences he has been charge-sheeted unless there is incriminating evidence to connect him with the alleged crime. Under the circumstances, the impugned order on charge cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order on charge is hereby set-aside. The petitioner/accused person is hereby discharged and his bail bonds are cancelled. 9. Under the circumstances, the impugned order on charge cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order on charge is hereby set-aside. The petitioner/accused person is hereby discharged and his bail bonds are cancelled. 9. Needless to say that this order will govern only petitioner/accused person and not the other accused persons against whom complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action in this regard. 11. Certified copy as per rules.