Prem Kumar @ Prem vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities cases Court, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as the 'trial court') in Sessions Case No.53/2017, whereby the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 376(D) and 384 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is argued that in the FIR lodged by the complainant-Dhanne Singh, no allegations of sexual assault or extortion of money have been levelled against the petitioner and the same were levelled against the other co-accused persons. It is further argued that the allegations leveled by daughter of the complainant Mst. 'P' in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are absolutely false and the same have been levelled due to enmity between the petitioner and her father. It is argued that the trial court without taking into consideration the material available on record, in a mechanical manner, has framed charges against the petitioner by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the trial court has failed to take into consideration the fact that no allegation of extortion has been levelled against the petitioner either by the complainant or any other witness and there is no material available on record, which suggests that the petitioner had extorted money from the complainant. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from the above referred charges levelled against him.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the charge-sheet.

It is true that in the FIR lodged by the complainant-Dhanne Ram, no such allegation of sexual assault was levelled against the petitioner, but during the course of investigation, statements of daughter of the complainant Mst. 'P" have been recorded by the police, wherein she has specifically alleged that petitioner along with other co-accused persons namely Ganesh Bhambhu and Shiv Kumar had sexually assaulted her and her sister on various occasions. The specific dates, time and places have also been detailed out by daughter of the complainant Mst. 'P'.

It is to be noticed that during the course of investigation, statements of Kiran Devi W/o Dhanne Singh, Mahendra Singh S/o Dhanne Singh and daughter of the complainant Mst. 'P' have been recorded, wherein all of them have stated that the dispute regarding a house was already settled but the petitioner along with other co-accused persons had forcibly took Rs.15 lacs from the complainant and when he objected it, the other co-accused persons severely assaulted him.

Taking into consideration the above peace of evidence available on record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 376(D) and 384 of IPC because at the time of framing of charges, the trial court is required to look into the prima facie evidence against the accused person and it is not expected to record a finding whether conviction of the petitioner as an accused is possible or not on the basis of material available on record.

In view of the above discussion, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.