Pratap Narayan Tiwari vs State of M.P.

N.S. Azad, J.—Arguments heard.

On 24th November, 2001, First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, framed charge against this petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 138/2000, for offence punishable u/s 376(g) of the IPC, giving rise to this revision.

In police statements of Ku. Seema so also her father Krishnapal Singh, which purports to have been recorded on 3rd December, 1999, this petitioner who is known as ''Nanu'' also, is stated to have committed rape on the prosecutrix Ku. Seema, at the time of alleged incident and hence even if the name of this petitioner is not found stated in the F.I.R., the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in framing the charge against this petitioner for an offence punishable u/s 376(g) of the IPC.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has laid great stress on this fact that in the affidavit, which purports to have been sworn in by Ku. Seema on 10th September, 1999, so also the statements of Seema and her father Krishnapal Singh, recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.PC, this petitioner is not stated to have committed rape on the prosecutrix Seema and hence the framing of charge against this petitioner is not justified.

But the statement recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.PC and the affidavit cannot to be accepted at the time of framing of the charge for ignoring the statements recorded u/s 161, Cr.PC, which are required to be considered for framing charge.

In result, this revision does not merit, which is accordingly rejected at the stage of motion hearing.