FARIS SHUJA JALAI @ ANUP Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this Revision Petition, the Petitioner impugns the framing of the charges under Section 120B read with Sections 420/366-A/372/373 IPC and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act) and substantive offences under Section 373 IPC and Section 5 of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that infact initially the Petitioner was arrested in a connected case bearing RC No.S1/1/2012/S0005 which related to procurement of another girl Riya Lama @ Riya Mothey. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the certificate relied upon by the prosecution to show that Pranisha @ Alisha Gurang was less than 18 years is doubtful as the name of Pranisha has been later on introduced by the prosecution and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate, she had given her age as 18 years. It is contended that there is no evidence collected by the CBI which could be converted into legal evidence during the course of the trial. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to be discharged. It is contended that the prosecuting agency is relying on the conversation recorded between the Petitioner and the co-accused Anand Vishwa in the other case which cannot be used against him. Moreover, the same is not admissible in evidence as at the time the conversation took place, coaccused Anand Vishwa was in police custody. Thus, the statement made by him or for that matter conversation in immediate presence of the police officer which was in the shape of an incriminating statement would be hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI supports the order of framing of charges urging that the appreciation of evidence is not required to be done at the stage of framing of the charge and that a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence is enough for the purpose of framing the charges.