Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jai Kishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2052) on 13 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2052]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 648/2024
Jai Kishan S/o Sh. Raghunath Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Bhilon-Ki-Dhani, Barasan, Tehsil And Police Station Gudamalani,
District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhajan Lal S/o Sh. Bhakra Ram, R/o Bhilon-Ki-Dhani,
Barasan, Tehsil And Police Station Gudamalani, District
Barmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. MM Dhera
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
13/01/2025
The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated
13.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act,
2012 & Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005,
Balotra whereby the learned Judge allowed the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No.2 and took
cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 450,
376(3), 376D IPC and Sections 3/4, 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act and
Section 67A of IT Act.
Facts in brief are that an FIR was filed against the present
petitioner and co-accused Sujanaram. After thorough
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2052] (2 of 3) [CRLR-648/2024]
investigation, the police submitted challan only against co-accused
Sujanaram and exonerated the present petitioner. Thereafter, the
victim was examined in court as PW-1 and subsequently, an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent
No.2, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated
13.02.2024 and cognizance was taken against the present
petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this revision petition
against the order of cognizance.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that after thorough
investigation, Police came to the conclusion that no call detail
between the petitioner and the victim was available, therefore, the
presence of the present petitioner is very much doubtful. Counsel
submits that there is no occasion to disbelieve the final report
submitted by the Police, but the trial court without appreciating
the facts mentioned in the final report, took cognizance against
the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of taking cognizance
may be set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No.2
have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner
and submitted that in the FIR as well as in the statements
recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and in court statement,
the victim levelled specific allegation of commission of rape
against the present petitioner as well as co-accused Sujanaram. At
the stage of taking cognizance, call details should not be looked
into. The findings of the Police regarding call details is illegal and
the trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
order impugned as well as material available on record.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2052] (3 of 3) [CRLR-648/2024]
In the FIR, the complainant/respondent No.2 stated that
when his minor daughter was alone in the house, at that time the
present petitioner and co-accused Sujanaram entered in the house
and committed rape with her minor daughter. Even, the victim in
her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. as well
as in her court statement as PW-1, specifically deposed that the
present petitioner and co-accused Sujanaram had committed rape
with her. Further, the victim was merely 14 years of age. Thus,
there is ample evidence available on record for taking cognizance
against the petitioner. The finding given by the investigating
officer while exonerating the petitioner that no call details was
available between the petitioner and victim, is absolutely illegal
and perverse.
The learned trial court after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as material available on record
has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner for the
aforesaid offence.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is
called for in the impugned order. The revision petition is
dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
108-MS/-
(Downloaded on 13/01/2025 at 09:49:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)