High CourtsSingle Bench

Mana Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 2 November 1989 · Citation: (1989) 2 WLN 358

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohini Kapoor, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 161, 164 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 109, 376
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 595 of 1989
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 416 words

Mohini Kapoor, J.—Heard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has prayed that the charge against the petitioner for the offence u/s 376 read with Section 109, IPC should be quashed.

2.

The case in brief is that, the prosecutrix Baby came to the residence of Shri Dungar Ram, MLA in the MLA quarters at Jaipur where on night time, one Rekha Ram committed rape with her. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he was standing outside and that he and others gave beating to her husband Dasrath Singh. In the FIR it has been mentioned that the present petitioner Mana Ram also entered the room in which the prosecutrix was sleeping with the intention to commit rape upon her. Thus story, given in the first information report has not been supported in the statement given u/s 161 Cr. PC and in the statement of the prosecutrix made u/s 164 Cr PC but only allegation is that he was also standing with others and that he had taken liquor with Rekharam and her husband Dasrath Singh prior to the occurrence.

3.

This is not a stage for appreciating the evidence which has been collected by the prosecution in this case but what is to be seen is whether there are grounds for proceeding against the accused. Charge has to be framed only on the basis of the material submitted along with the challan. It cannot be said that there are grounds for proceeding against the accused. The First Information Report alone cannot be said to be a substantive peace of evidence. In this case, when in the statement u/s 161 Cr. PC and statement u/s 164 Cr. PC there is no allegation that the petitioner committed the offence u/s 376 IPC read with Section 109 IPC, then he cannot be made to face the trial merely because he was also present when the occurrence took piece. In this case the acts attributed to this petitioner are not such, which cars call under the acts which constitute an offence of abatement. Considering all these facts, it can be said that there are no reasonable grounds on basis of which it could be said that the petitioner should be made to face the trial for the offence u/s 376 read with Section 109 IPC.

4.

Accordingly, this petition is accepted, the charge is quashed and the accused petitioner is discharged for the offence u/s 376 read with Section 109 IPC.