Ashok Kumar Dadhich vs State of Rajasthan

B.J. Shethna, J.—The petitioner accused has prayed in this petition to quash the FIR and the proceedings in criminal case No. 48/2000 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda qua him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of gang rape and the prosecutrix state that las many as 16 persons including the present petitioner accused committed rape on her. In support of it, she had given names of only four accused in the FIR and in supplementary statement she had given names of two more and when her statement was recorded u/s 164, she had given names of ten more accused. Thus, the story put forward by the prosecutrix is wholly unreliable, therefore, proceedings initiated against the present petitioner in criminal case No. 48/2000 be quashed. It is averred in para No. 2 of this petition that in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 and 379 read with 37 IPC the learned trial court issued arrest warrant against the petitioner accused, therefore, before filing this petition, he had approached the Sessions Court by way of anticipatory bail, which was rejected and, thereafter, he approached this Court but the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court also. It is only thereafter this petition is filed.

When the anticipatory bail application of the present petitioner was rejected by the courts namely Sessions Court as well as this Court then it cannot be said that there was no prima facie material against the present petitioner for proceeding against him in criminal case No. 48/2000. Non-mentioning of name of present petitioner in the FIR has no relevance at this stage. When a lady comes with a complaint that rape was committed on her by as many as 16 persons then it would be difficult for her to disclose the names of all the accused. In such type of case where a heinous act is committed then it is not expected that prosecutrix should come out with a case in detail in FIR. Anyone in her place would have been aghasted by such heinous act and in that mental state if she had first given names of four persons in the FIR then it does not mean that her version u/s 161 Cr.P.C. or 164 Cr.P.C. can be said to be false. These are the matters of evidence and if she deposes against accused in the court during trial and if her evidence is duly corroborated by other evidence like medical evidence etc. then there may not be any difficulty for any court to convict the accused.

In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.