AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr.N.Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.Sevananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
This revision application is directed against the order dated 1.6.2015 passed by learned Session Judge, Thoubal in S.T Case No.25 of 2014 (arising out of FIR No.142(9) 2001 Thoubal P.S) whereby and whereunder charges have been framed under Section 366, 354/34 IPC and 323/34 of IPC.
Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the case of the prosecutrix, as has been made out in the FIR, needs to be taken notice of.
It has been alleged by the informant, the prosecutrix that while she had gone for blood testing at Thoubal Bazar Wangma Taba (Pharmacy Shopping Complex), one Ambassador Car bearing registration No.MN 1A 2511 driven by one Yumnam Chandra Singh came with two accused persons (petitioners) named in the FIR and they tried to push her inside the car but the persons who were there rescued her and prevented her from being kidnapped. The public caught hold of the accused persons and beaten them up.
On the basis of the said written ejahar, a case was registered as FIR No.142 (9) 2001 TBL P.S under Sections 366/34 IPC. The matter was taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation final report was submitted whereby the accused persons were exonerated. Thereupon, protest petition was filed, whereupon an order was passed for taking the case for further investigation. After further investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. Upon which, Court took cognizance of offences. Thereupon the Court after hearing on the point of charge did record that prima facie materials are there for framing charges u/s 366/511, 354/34 and 323/34 of I.P.C. Thereupon on the same day that is on 01.06.2015, the charges were framed which were framed u/s 366, 354/34 and 323/34 of I.P.C.
Mr.Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though charges have been framed under Sections 366 and 354 IPC but there does not appear to be any material for framing charges for the said offences as the victim was never taken away anywhere from the place where the occurrence is said to have taken place nor there has been any material to show that the petitioners had had intention to commit offence of outraging the modesty of woman or even for causing hurt to her and thereby the court committed wrong in framing charges for the said offences and hence order framing charge being bad is fit to be set aside.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that every material is there in the Case Diary for framing charges under Section 366 or 366/511 and under Section 354/34 and 323/34 of IPC. In this regard it was further submitted that material is there in the case diary to show that the accused persons forcibly tried to kidnap the victim and while doing so, they caused hurt to the victim and even outraged her modesty and thereby the Court is absolutely justified in framing charges under Section 366/354/323/34 IPC.
I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents. It be noticed that it is the case of the prosecutrix that while she went out for blood testing at Thoubal Bazar Wangmataba Bus Parking, one Ambassador Car being driven by Yumnam Chandra Singh came with the two accused (petitioners) and they tried to push the victim inside the car but the people who were there protested, as a result of which the victim could not be kidnapped by the accused persons and while the accused persons pushed the informant inside the Car, accused even got injury and that the persons who were assembled there caught hold of the accused persons and gave a thrashing to them. On such allegations, the court upon hearing on the point of charge did record vide its order dated 01.06.2015 that sufficient material is there for framing charge u/s 366/511, 354/34 and 323/23 of I.P.C but while framing charges it were framed u/s 366, 354/34-323/34 of I.P.C, which can be altered at any point of time.
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality with the impugned order and hence, this application, being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected.
Since the matter is quite an old one, the trial court would take endeavour to conclude it at the earliest, preferably within nine months.