Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 356 (RAJ)

Raseed v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-09

V.K.MATHUR

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners, Raseed and Sameed, have preferred the instant revision petition against the order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the learned trial court accepted the protest petition of the complainant and has taken cognizance against the present petitioners under Sections 376 (2)(i) and 376D IPC and under Section 5 read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pocso Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Rahul, who is brother of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR No. 3/2014, at police station Ramgarh, District Alwar under Sections 363, 366 and 342 IPC, against Hanif and Rukki, wife of Hanif with the allegations that on 3.1.2014, at about 12:00 PM in the night, Rukki, wife of Hanif kidnapped her sister from lawful guardianship. When the complainant came to know about disappearance of the prosecutrix, they searched her. At about 9:00 am, they received an information about her sister and found her coming from field, who told them that Hanif and his wife Rukki took her away with them and locked her in a house at Chirawa. She was kept locked in the room. In the morning, at about 8:00 am, on the pretext of call of nature, she ran away. 3. During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which the prosecutrix stated that the accused Hanif and the petitioners, namely Raseed and Sameed, had raped her. The supplementary statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded, in which she had alleged rape by the present petitioners and the co-accused Hanif. The call details of Hanif and Sameed were got verified and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused Hanif and his wife Rukki @ Ruksina under Section 363, 366A, 342, 376(2)(i) IPC and under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act. However, after verifying the call details and the statement of the prosecutrix, the present petitioners Raseed and Sameed were not found to be involved in the crime. 4. However, after verifying the call details and the statement of the prosecutrix, the present petitioners Raseed and Sameed were not found to be involved in the crime. 4. Thereafter, the complainant, Rahul, filed a protest petition before the trial court on 22.5.2014, which was partly accepted and cognizance under Sections 376 (2)(i) and 376D IPC and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act, against the present petitioners was taken by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court has taken the cognizance against the petitioners on protest petition and no reasons have been given for disagreeing with negative police report against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.6.2014 deserves to be set aside. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgments reported in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2006(2) WLC 239 ; Hanumana Ram & Ors. v. State & Ors. 2007 WLC 153 . 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the trial court has given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the negative police report and the trial court after giving valid reasons has taken cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. The present First Information Report was filed by Rahul, who is the brother of the prosecutrix, under Sections 363, 366 and 342 IPC. The prosecutrix who was a minor aged 15 years has clearly stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Raseed and Sameed along with co-accused Hanif had raped her. The prosecutrix has reiterated the incident in supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court has given detailed reasons for disagreeing with the negative police report and has passed the impugned order. At this stage, the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be overlooked. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Thus, in view of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 and 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, namely Raseed and Sameed, under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376D IPC and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act. 9. Thus, in view of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 and 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, namely Raseed and Sameed, under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376D IPC and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the learned trial court. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******