Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 876 (RAJ)

Saroj v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No. 119/2009, whereby the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr.Case No. 213/2005, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the protest petition of the petitioner and accepted the negative final report submitted by the police. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.02.2004, the petitioner submitted a written report at Police Station, Gangashahar, District Bikaner, alleging therein that on 19.02.2004 at about 1:00 P.M., accused-respondent No. 2 Prabhu Dayal came to her house and asked for her husband and when she replied that her husband is not at home, then he came in and committed rape on her. At that time, her husband and uncle-in-law came there and caught hold of the accused respondent- Prabhu Dayal but the brothers of accused-Prabhu Dayal along with 10-12 persons, came there and got Prabhu Dayal released from them; after beating the petitioner and her husband and threatening her to kill, they ran away from there. On receiving this complaint from the petitioner, FIR No. 29/2004 was registered at Police Station Ganga Shahar, District Bikaner and the investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a negative final report, against which the petitioner had preferred a protest petition, on which, the learned trial court took the cognizance against the accused respondents for the offences punishable under sections 452, 323, 376 IPC and under section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 09.02.2009. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2009, the respondents preferred a revision petition before the revisional court and the revisional court, while accepting the revision petition, quashed the order of taking cognizance and remanded the matter to the learned trial court for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties. The learned trial court thereafter heard the parties and rejected the protest petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner and accepted the FR submitted by the police. 3. The learned trial court thereafter heard the parties and rejected the protest petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner and accepted the FR submitted by the police. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.06.2011 and against the said order, the petitioner has preferred this cr. Misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial court would have to look into the prima facie case only at the time of considering the protest petition as well as the negative final report submitted by the police, however, the learned trial court proceeded with the matter as if it is going to finally decide the case. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the learned trial court of rejecting the protest petition and accepting the final report is nothing but the abuse of process of law. It is further contended that the learned trial court failed to consider the statements of the petitioner recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC and rejected the same while observing that there are several contradictions in the said statements. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statements recorded by the trial court under sections 200 and 202 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly make out a prima facie case against the accused-respondents, and the revisional court has also not taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and has passed the order dated 10.06.2011 in a manner as if it is deciding the case finally. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court are liable to be set aside 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have supported the order dated 10.06.2011 and argued that no evidence of committal of offence punishable under sections 452, 323, 376 IPC and under section 3 of the SC & ST Act is available on record and, therefore, the learned trial court had not committed any illegality in accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition preferred by the petitioner. It is further contended that the learned revisional court has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter and has thereafter rightly rejected the revision petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This Court, issued the notices to the respondent No. 2 only, while observing that it is not a fit case for consideration of the petition as regard the respondents No. 3 and 4 are concerned. 8. The learned trial court, while taking into consideration the fact that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 161, 164 Cr PC and section 200 of the Evidence Act has observed that the independent witnesses are also not supporting the version of the prosecutrix and the husband of the petitioner had also made contradictory statement regarding his presence on the scene of crime. The court below has taken into consideration the fact regarding the previous enmity between the parties, which are available on record. The learned revisional court has taken into consideration the order passed by the learned trial court and has found that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court as the same has been passed after going through the evidence available on record and it is clear that the evidence produced by the prosecutrix is not trustworthy and the circumstances suggest that no offence as alleged had been committed by the accused-respondent No. 2. The revisional court has taken into consideration the medical examination report and the fact that none of the relatives of the complainant had received any injury, however, they asserted that they have been assaulted by 10- 12 persons while releasing the accused Prabhu Dayal from their custody. 9. After careful examination of the impugned orders and scrutiny of the record, this Court finds that the report of the incident was filed on 22.02.2004 i.e. four days after the incident. During the course of investigation, the police had found that the husband of the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 3000/- from Prabhu Dayal on 21.08.2003 and both of them had an altercation on 19.02.2004 in respect of repayment of said loan near Gagaji Temple in the village. During the course of investigation, the police had found that the husband of the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 3000/- from Prabhu Dayal on 21.08.2003 and both of them had an altercation on 19.02.2004 in respect of repayment of said loan near Gagaji Temple in the village. The police also found that the presence of Debu Ram and Chorulal witnesses named in the FIR was also doubtful as they reside too far to reach the alleged scene of crime on hearing the noise of fighting at Shera Ram's house. Apart from that, there were contradictions in the statements of the petitioner recorded at different stages with no support from other witnesses. 10. Looking to the above circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned revisional court as well as the trial court. Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.PC, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.Records of the trial court as well as the revisional court be sent forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******