Sangeeta @APPELLANT@Hash Kishore Singh

These cross-revisions under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. one by complainant petitioner Sangeeta for not framing charge against

accused Kishore Singh for offence under Sections 366, 376/511 of IPC and the other by accused-petitioner Kishore Singh against framing of charge

against him under Sections 365, 324, 323 and 355 of IPC, arise out of common order dated 11.07.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur

in Sessions Case No.113/2011 (State Vs. Kishore Singh), therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

The facts, in brief, are that on 06.03.2011 complainantpetitioner Sangeeta submitted a report at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur stating inter-alia

therein that accused Kishore Singh was threatening her for last six months to get married with him despite the fact that she was already married. It

was stated that accused used to chase her and not only threatened her to kill but beaten and outraged her modesty. It was further stated that on

28.02.2011 while she was on her way to office in a bus, she received a call on her mobile from accused who told her to get down from bus and on her

alighting from the bus taken her to a hotel in a car on knife point.  On her refusal to enter into hotel, accused beaten her and threatened to defame

her.  On the basis of said report, police registered FIR No.76/2011 for offence under Section 342, 323, 354 IPC against accused-petitioner

Kishore Singh and recorded statements of complainant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, statement of complainant was

also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she made improvement and stated that she was taken to a lonely place by accused and there he

tried to commit rape on her and in that process torn her clothes and bitten her cheeks. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against accused-

petitioner under Sections 376/511, 365, 366, 354, 355, 323 and 324 IPC.   After committal of case to learned trial Court, the learned trial Court

heard arguments on charge and by the order impugned framed charges against accused-petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354

and 365 IPC while discharging him under Sections 366 and 376/511 IPC.

Mr. Vipul Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitionercomplainant, submits that the learned trial Court has not at all cared to examine prima facie case

against the petitioner for framing charges under Section 366, 376/511 IPC. Mr. Singhvi argued that in this connection the statements of

complainantpetitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are clear and unequivocal, and therefore, learned trial Court ought to have framed charges

against the accused-petitioner for offence under said Sections of IPC.    Learned counsel for the complainant has also urged that at the stage

of framing charge possibility of commission of crime is required to be seen by the Court as against its certainty.

As against this, Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for accused-petitioner has argued that the entire incident as projected in FIR and

161 statements of complainant per se appears highly improbable. Learned Senior Counsel submits that complainant and accused petitioner were

having intimate relations which is clear from call details and as such it is a clear case of false implication. Learned Senior Counsel further points out

that the place where complainant got down from the bus was not a lonely place but crowded one having many hotels, shops, petrol pump and college

in the vicinity and admittedly she did not make any hue and cry rather the complainant if at all sat in the car of accused-petitioner it was of her own

volition.  While referring to call details collected during investigation, learned Senior Counsel would urge that complainant has made numerous

calls to the accused-petitioner, is sufficient to show close proximity between both. He, therefore, submits that all allegations that she was given

threatenings or was forcefully abducted is totally false and therefore, the offences for which the accused-petitioner is charged by the impugned order

cannot be sustained.

Mr. O.P. Rathi, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing in these revisions, submits that the learned trial Court, upon examining the material available on

record, has rightly exercised its discretion for framing charges against the accused-petitioner.Â

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused impugned order in conjunction with materials available on record.

At the outset, it may be observed that at the stage of framing charge, Court is required to see prima facie case, and sufficiency of evidence resulting

into conviction is not to be seen at that stage. In the instant case, the complainant has projected different versions and has improved in her

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and sans any material to show grave

suspicion indicating involvement for crime of kidnapping within the four corners of Section 366 IPC or specific allegation to commit sexual intercourse

with her by the accused-petitioner, prima facie, offence under Section 366 or 376/511 IPC is not made out.  This finding of the learned trial Court

in this regard is just and reasonable. As regards other Sections of IPC for which the charges have been framed by the learned trial Court against

accused-petitioner, in view of investigation and overall scenario the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion for framing these charges.

On overall analysis, in my view, while framing the charge, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or impropriety warranting interference in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Resultantly, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed