[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sudhir Soni vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:37188) on 18 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:37188]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1657/2019
Sudhir Soni S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Kumahar Mohalla, Near Badi Pani Ki Tanki, Abu Road, District
Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Satish Chandra Garg S/o Sh. Anna Lal Ji, R/o Near Vishnu
Dharamshala, Abu Road, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
18/08/2025
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
accused challenging the order dated 14.10.2019, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Abu Road, District Sirohi,
in Sessions Case No.49/2018 (State of Rajasthan v. Sudhir Soni),
whereby charges have been framed against him for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 366 and 376/511 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for
adjudication of the present case are that Shri. Satish Chandra
Garg along with his daughter filed a typed report, based upon
which an FIR dated 10.08.2018, being FIR No.226/2018, was
lodged at Police Station, Abu Road City, District Sirohi. In the FIR,
it was alleged that on 09.08.2018, Shri Satish Chandra Garg
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37188] (2 of 8) [CRLR-1657/2019]
received a phone call from Kanaiya Lal at around 09:30 PM,
informing therein that Head Constable-Bhawani Singh had
informed him that his daughter was found near a factory at RIICO
Growth Centre, Mawal, in a very threatened and injured condition.
Upon the information so given, he along with his family members
reached at the site and found his daughter in a sub-conscious and
injured condition, and upon asking, his daughter informed that
around 07:00 PM, she had gone at a shop near the Dharamsala to
bring grocery articles, where the petitioner-accused Sudhir Soni
and one more person, both on a motorcycle, forcefully made her
to sit upon the motorcycle and took her to a deserted area at the
RIICO Growth Centre, Mawal, where they assaulted her and
Sudhir Soni tried to forcefully commit rape upon her. Upon which,
she resisted and certain persons came there and, therefore,
Sudhir Soni, while threatening her not to inform anybody, ran
away.
2.1 Post lodging of the FIR, the statements of the victim under
Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and also a medical
report was sought, qua the victim. Post arrest of the petitioner-
accused, his medical examination was also conducted. The Police,
after investigation and taking statement of various witnesses,
including drawing the sketch map and the crime detail form based
upon the information divulged by the petitioner-accused Sudhir
Soni under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, filed the charge-
sheet against the petitioner-accused Sudhir Soni for offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 365 & 376/511 of IPC. Post
committal of the case, the learned Trial Court, after considering
the record, framed charges against the petitioner-accused for
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37188] (3 of 8) [CRLR-1657/2019]
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 366 & 376/511 of
IPC. Being aggrieved against the same, the present Criminal
Revision petition has been filed.
3. Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that even if the statement made by the petitioner-accused is
accepted as it is, then also no case for offences punishable under
Sections 366 & 376/511 of IPC is made out. He further submits
that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim and
that she has improved her version in her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. He further submit that the learned Trial Court was
required to consider the entire record and not selectively consider
the statement of victim alone. He further submit that, even if the
statement of the victim is accepted as it is, then, it is clear that
from a dense residential/commercial area, the victim was taken on
the motorcycle, which itself is not believable, and therefore, the
offence under Section 366 IPC is not made out. He, thus, prays for
discharge as far as offences under Sections 366 & 376/511 of IPC
are concerned.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the
order impugned submits that there is ample evidence available on
record for framing of charges for offences punishable under
Sections 366 & 376/511 of IPC itself. He further submits that the
statement of the victim is supported by the medical evidence and
the statements of other witnesses also fortifies the fact of
existence of all the ingredients of offences punishable under
Sections 366 & 376/511 of IPC.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37188] (4 of 8) [CRLR-1657/2019]
record. For constituting an offence under Section 366 IPC, the
necessary ingredients are as under:-
“366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to
compel her marriage, etc.– Whoever kidnaps or abducts
any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry
any person against her will, or in order that she may be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be
likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as
defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other
method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any
place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely
that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with
another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.”
6. A perusal of the provisions of Section 366 of IPC will reveal
that to bring home the offence under Section 366 IPC, kidnapping
or abducting of any woman should be with the intent that she may
be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled,
to marry any person against her will, or to be forced or seduced to
illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced
or seduced to illicit intercourse. In the present case, the
averments made in the FIR, as well as the statements of the
prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. will
clearly reveal that she had specifically stated that she was
abducted on the motorcycle under the belief that she would be
dropped home, but she was taken to a separate place near RIICO
Growth Centre, Mawal and there the petitioner-accused tried to
rape her. Thus, the abduction with the intent to force the victim to
illicit intercourse is prima-facie proved. Thus, prima facie, all the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37188] (5 of 8) [CRLR-1657/2019]
necessary ingredients to bring home offence under Section 366
IPC have been made out.
6.1 As regards the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner, a bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, the
statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C. will reveal that she has been consistent in her stand
that she was abducted on the motorcycle by the petitioner-
accused, and thereafter, the petitioner-accused attempted to
commit rape upon her, which was resisted by her with full vigour,
due to which she sustained injuries. The stand of the prosecturix-
victim has been consistent and is even supported by the medical
evidence, inasmuch as, the medical report, which is part of the
record, shows bruises and abrasions on the body of the
prosecutrix. Furthermore, the witnesses examined by the Police
Officials also fortified the stand of the prosecutrix. Thus, prima
facie, there was sufficient material available before the learned
Trial Court to frame charges for offences punishable under
Sections 366 & 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and to proceed
with trial in accordance therewith at this stage.
7. As far as the stage of framing of charge, discharge is
concerned, the provisions in this regard are contained under
Section 227 & 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which
provide as under:-
“227. Discharge._ If, upon consideration of the record of
the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution
in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
228. Framing of charge._ (1) If, after such consideration
and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37188] (6 of 8) [CRLR-1657/2019]
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence which –
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session,
he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order,
transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or
any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the
accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as
the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on
such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate]
[Substituted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 22 for “and
thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate” (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).]
shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the
trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame
in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of
sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to
accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads
guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, dealt with
the powers of the Court while framing charges and the relevant
considerations qua the same. In the cases of Sajjan Kumar v.
Central Bureau of Investigation: 2010 9 SCC 368, M.E.
Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2020
2 SCC 768, State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap:
2021 11 SCC 191, Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain
Mohammed Shattaf & Ors.: 2023 7 SCC 633 & State of
Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao: 2023 17 SCC 688, it has
been held that at the stage of framing of charge, the power of
weighing and sifting the evidence is limited to assess whether a
prima facie case is made out against the petitioner-accused, based
upon the material available on record. It is further settled that
when the material placed before the Court discloses grave
suspicion against the petitioner-accused, which has not been
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37188] (7 of 8) [CRLR-1657/2019]properly explained, the Court would be justified in framing charges
and proceeding with the trial. If, on the basis of material available
on record, the Court is able to forms an opinion that the
petitioner-accused might have committed the offence, it should
proceed with framing of the charges.
8.1 It is also well settled that at the stage of framing of charges,
the probative value of the material available on record cannot be
gone into. At the same time, the Court is not expected to act as a
mere post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution and is required
to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record before
it. Thus, if the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the petitioner-accused, even if, fully
accepted at face value fails to establish that the petitioner-accused
had committed the offence, then there exists no sufficient ground
for proceeding with the trial and the learned Trial Court, at that
stage should discharge the petitioner-accused.
9. Applying the above-mentioned considerations to the facts of
the present case, it is apparent that the FIR clearly discloses the
commission of offence of abduction of the prosecutrix with the
intent to commit illicit sexual intercourse with her and further
ingredients of offence punishable under Section 376/511 of IPC
have been proved. Not only the FIR, but the statement of the
prosecutrix-P under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and the
corresponding medical report, establishes prima facie case
corroborating the version of prosecutrix and fortifies fact of there
being sufficient material before the learned Trial Court to form a
prima facie opinion, regarding commission of offences punishable
under Sections 366 & 376/511 of IPC.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37188] (8 of 8) [CRLR-1657/2019]
10. The upshot of the above observations is that the present
criminal revision petition, being bereft of merit, is hereby
dismissed. The order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Session No.1, Abu Road, District Sirohi, framing charges
against the petitioner-accused is upheld. It is, however, made
clear that any observations made by this Court, while deciding the
present revision petition, are only prima-facie in nature, and the
learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same. The
learned Trial Court shall proceed to determine the outcome of the
trial based solely on the material available on record.
11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
81-devrajP/-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 10:42:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link