Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 618 (RAJ)

Bunty v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-18

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2024
ORDER : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.05/2015 by which the charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 370(5) and 374 of IPC and under Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Protection & Care) Act, 2000 (for short, "the Act of 2000"). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner brought some minor children from the State of Madhya Pradesh for getting forceful labour from them and he was found to be involved in the offence of committing human trafficking. As per the statements of the minor children, they were forcefully taken against their wishes for conducting forceful labour. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner for the above stated offences, charges have been framed against him vide impugned order dated 29.07.2015. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant petition has been filed. 3. Contents of the petition indicate that no offence is made out against the petitioner and he has been falsely booked in this case. On this count, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for discharge from the alleged offences. 4. Considering the material available on the record. 5. The report indicates that an FIR was registered against the petitioner for human trafficking of the minor children for forceful labour and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 370(5) and 374 of IPC and under Sections 23 and 26 of the Act of 2000. Thereafter, finding prima facie case against the petitioner, the trial Court proceed against him and framed charges for the above offences. 6. Whether the petitioner is innocent or he has been falsely implicated in the case or not? All these facts are required to be seen at the time of trial, after due appreciation of evidence available on the record. 7. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of the charges, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. All these facts are required to be seen at the time of trial, after due appreciation of evidence available on the record. 7. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of the charges, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court is not required to evaluate the material available on the record and the Court is required to see and find out if the facts emerging therefrom, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences or not. 8. Thus, it is settled legal position that at the stage of framing of charge, for the offence against the accused, prima facie case is required to be seen whether sufficient grounds are available on the record to proceed against the accused and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage, the evidence is not required to be analysed as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial. 9. In the opinion of the Court, no plausible ground exist to interfere in the impugned order. There is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order dated 29.07.2015. 10. Hence, the instant revision petition as well as the stay application stands dismissed.