Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 797 (MP)

Ravindra Ghosh v. State of M. P.

2013-07-12

Subhash Kakade

body2013
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in S.T. No. 241/11 (State of M.P. v. Ravindra Ghosh), accused/petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The learned trial Court by the impugned order framed the charges against the petitioner for alleged offence punishable under sections 363 and 366 of the IPC stating that petitioner had kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her father Balchand Ghosh against her will for the purpose of performing marriage and for committing sexual intercourse with her. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a report received at Police Station, Jatara, District-Tikamgarh that the prosecutrix was missing since 6.9.2011. The information disclosed that the prosecutrix went out from her house at about 6 A.M. and did not come back, therefore, missing person report was registered. When prosecutrix recovered, she made a statement before the SDM, Jatara. Statement of her father and other witnesses were also recorded. On the basis of evidence collected during the investigation, the police submitted challan against the petitioner. 4. The learned trial Judge framed charges mentioned hereinabove against which this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Shri S.A.Wakeel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no material on the record to disclose the commission of offence under section 366 of IPC. Prosecutrix clearly stated that she had gone to Delhi and other places willingly, and at any point of time petitioner did not compel the prosecutrix to perform marriage with him. 6. On the other hand, Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence available against the accused/petitioner, the learned trial Court has rightly framed charges, therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The prosecutrix made a statement before the SDM that on 6.9.2011, without informing her family members, she had gone with the petitioner, firstly from Mauranipur to Jhansi by bus, and thereafter from Jhansi to Delhi by train. 7. I have gone through the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The prosecutrix made a statement before the SDM that on 6.9.2011, without informing her family members, she had gone with the petitioner, firstly from Mauranipur to Jhansi by bus, and thereafter from Jhansi to Delhi by train. She has also stated that they together stayed at Delhi for three days, and at Mathura for one day, and during this period petitioner did not cause any harm to her as well as she was not enticed by the petitioner against her will. 9. At the time of framing of charge, a Judge is not expected to make a roving inquiry in pros and cons of matter and weigh evidence. He has only to consider total effect of the evidence and document produced before him. Truth, veracity and effect of evidence are not to be judged at initial stage of trial. The test to be applied by the Court is whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, and not for sufficient ground to conviction. Strong suspicion about commission of offence and involvement of accused is sufficient to frame charge. 10. After going through the available record, in the light of above, it is pertinent to mention here the fact which is not disputed that all the time prosecutrix was with the petitioner. During statements recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, she stated that all the time petitioner deceit her for marriage. Parents of the prosecutrix claiming that she is minor. 11. In view of above, this revision petition does not require to be accepted because impugned order passed by learned trial Judge does not require any change or discharge of the petitioner. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. However, it is made clear that any observation/s made in the present order, shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties while the case will be decided by the learned trial Judge on its own merits. 13. Petition dismissed.