Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 938 (RAJ)

Chain Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-13

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 6.9.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases (Sessions Judge), Balotra in Case No. 10/2010 framing charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 379, 447 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after for short 'the SC/ST Act') 3. Background facts in a nutshell are that on 22.3.2010 complainant Mst. Noji Devi W/o Sata Ram Bheel, resident of Kalawaton Ki Dhani made a complaint before the A.C.J.M. Balotra, which was sent to the Police Station, Mandli under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., inter alia, alleging that 15-20 days ago his husband and two 'devar' (younger brother of husband) had went to Orissa for labour and she lives behind at the home with her children. On 15.3.2010 in the evening at around 10-11 O'clock while she was sleeping in the house, she woke up upon hearing sound of steps and lit the bulb then Gorkha Ram S/o Kheta Ram Bheel and Chain Singh S/o Prema Singh Daroga, R/o Patrasar caught hold of her and pressed her mouth with their hand. In this hassle, her nose-ring stripped, causing her abrasion. Then both of those persons committed rape with her, she resisted but could not overcome. Ultimately, when hand on her mouth became loose, she raised hue & cry then firstly her mother-in-law rushed in and thereafter wives of her 'devars'-Hero and Amki came there. All three tried to caught those persons but they pushed them and fled from there. While leaving, accused persons also stole two goats. Then she and her mother-in-law told the incident to Chen Singh Chouhan and Fateh Singh Rathore of the Village. Upon this complaint, F.I.R. was registered against accused persons. 4. During the course of investigation, accused-petitioner Chain Singh was arrested and stolen goat was also recovered from his possession. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned A.C.J.M. on 10.5.2010 against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 447, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act. Upon this complaint, F.I.R. was registered against accused persons. 4. During the course of investigation, accused-petitioner Chain Singh was arrested and stolen goat was also recovered from his possession. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned A.C.J.M. on 10.5.2010 against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 447, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act. However, later, in view of order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, fresh charge sheet was filed on 20.7.2010 against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 447, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 5. Learned Special Judge, after hearing both the parties, vide order impugned dated 6.9.2011 framed charges against the accused-petitioner for commission of offences as aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision Petition has been filed before the Court. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that there was long delay in lodging the F.I.R., for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the complainant. There are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded by Police and in the F.I.R. itself. He further submitted that since the prosecution was initiated under provisions of the SC/ST Act, investigation should have been conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 7. He also submitted that any investigation, which has to be conducted in to the allegations made under the SC/ST Act is to be made in accordance with the rules but present case was investigated by a Sub Inspector of Police, who was not authorised in law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh-Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2003 decided on 15.4.2009 and decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Ramalinga Reddy alias D. Babu v. State of A.P., reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 2918 . 8. He, therefore, prayed that present Revision Petition against framing of charge under SC/ST Act against the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State defended the order impugned and submitted that satisfactory explanation about delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been given by the prosecutrix and the order passed by the Court below is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State defended the order impugned and submitted that satisfactory explanation about delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been given by the prosecutrix and the order passed by the Court below is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that it is true that initially case was investigated by Mr. Mishri Lal, Sub Inspector of Police but later on, by the order of Superintendent of Police, the case was afresh investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who recorded statements of witnesses and after due investigation, fresh charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not objected about this fact before the Court below and the trial is going on and some witnesses have also been. examined. So, in the facts and circumstances of this case, ratio of decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not apply to the facts of the present case and hence, the present Revision Petition may be rejected. 11. Having heard both the parties and gone through the order impugned passed by the trial Court as also documents produced before this Court, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly framed charges under Sections 379, 447 I.P.C. as also under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the accused-petitioner. Learned Court below seems to have committed no error in framing the aforesaid charges against the accused-petitioner on the basis of material available before it. 12. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion that the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge may be framed. The Court is to see if there are grounds for prima facie believing that the accused has committed offence, if it finds so, the Court shall frame charge against the accused person. 13. If the Court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge may be framed. The Court is to see if there are grounds for prima facie believing that the accused has committed offence, if it finds so, the Court shall frame charge against the accused person. 13. In the present case, sufficient evidence is available on record, which suggests that the offence under Sections 379, 447 I.P.C. as also tinder Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act was made out against the accused and further there are grounds for reasonable believing that the accused-petitioner has committed the offences so alleged. The order impugned passed by the trial Court, therefore, seems to be just and proper and this Court finds no illegality, which may call for any interference in the present Revision Petition. 14. However, it is made clear that there is no dispute on the legal point that the investigation should have been conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police where the prosecution was initiated under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In the present case, it is admitted fact that initially investigation was conducted by a Sub Inspector of Police but as per order of the Superintendent of Police, further investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of police and further charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 15. The petitioner has not argued this point before the trial Court. So, the petitioner is free to raise his this argument before the trial Court at the time of final decision of the case and the learned trial Court is free to decide this point while finally deciding the matter. 16. With aforesaid observations, present revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******