Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 74 (RAJ)

Ajeet @ Jeetu v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-04

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders dated 6.10.2017 and 17.11.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused with regard to commission of offence of rape. So far as the petitioner is concerned, challan was presented against him before the Juvenile Justice Board as he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence. Challan was presented against the co-accused Chandrashekhar before regular court. During trial of co-accused Chandrashekhar @ Jeetu @ Sunil, prosecutrix as well as her father did not support the prosecution case and consequently accused Chandrashekhar @ Jeetu @ Sunil was acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 7.3.2014 (Annexure 05). Petitioner was not aware of the said fact. Consequently, the statements made by prosecutrix and her father on 11.1.2013 during trial of co-accused could not be put to the said witnesses during trial of the petitioner. It was very necessary in the interest of justice to put the statements made by the prosecutrix and her father during trial of the co-accused of the petitioner to them in the present trial of the petitioner. 3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 4. In the present case facts are not in dispute. co-accused of the petitioner was challaned separately, whereas, the petitioner being a juvenile was challaned before the Juvenile Justice Board. A perusal of Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 reveals that the prosecutrix and her father had not supported the prosecution case and consequently co-accused Chandrashekhar @ Jeetu @ Sunil was acquitted by the trial court vide order Annexure-5. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not know about the fact that the prosecutrix and her father had not supported the prosecution case during trial of his co-accused. Petitioner wants to confront the prosecutrix and her father with regard to the statements made by them i.e. Annexure-3 and Annexure-4. Petitioner is also entitled to a fair trial. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, courts below fell in error in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for recalling the prosecutrix and her father (P.W.5 and P.W.2 respectively). 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 is allowed. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 is allowed. Prosecutrix and her father be re-summoned to enable the petitioner to confront them with their statements (Annexure 3 and Annexure 4) made on 11.1.2013 during trial of co-accused Chandrashekhar.