Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 609 (MP)

Gote @ Rambharat v. State of M. P.

2016-07-25

N.K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. The applicants have challenged the order dated 11.8.2015 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No.219/2015 whereby charges for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 376(2) (i), 376 (2)(n) of IPC and section 5(l) read with section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter it would be referred as 'POCSO Act') were framed against the applicant No.1 Gote @ Rambharat Sharma whereas same charges read with section 109 of the IPC and under section 17 of the POCSO Act were framed against the applicants No.2 and 3 namely Seetaram and Smt. Arti Sharma. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant No.1 kidnapped the prosecutrix in the case. For some time, he kept her at the house of Arti and committed rape upon her in that house. Thereafter, he kept the prosecutrix at the house of Seetaram for some time and committed rape upon her. 3. When charges are to be framed, it is for the trial Court to see as to whether if evidence collected by the prosecution is considered as such, then if any accused can be convicted for any particular offence then charge of such offence shall be constituted against the accused. 4. In the present case, prima facie it appears that prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and she was kidnapped by applicant No.1 hence, it cannot be said that no such charge could be framed against the applicant No.1. So far as the applicants No.2 and 3 are concerned, they gave shelter to the applicant No.1, who kidnapped the prosecutrix, and permitted in their house to commit rape upon her and therefore, if charges of abetment are framed against the applicants No.2 and 3, then it cannot be said that charges are wrongly framed. 5. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, no illegality or perversity is visible in the impugned order dated 11.8.2015 relating to framing of charges. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to accept the present revision against the impugned order. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants namely Gote @ Rambharat, Seetaram and Smt. Arti Sharma is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 6. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information. P. S. Bhadoriya for applicants; Mohd. Irshad, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.