TABASSUM ANSARI Vs. VISHAMBHAR BUDHAULIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 18.12.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T. No.147/95, whereby the respondents No.1 & 2 were discharged from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 344, 392 and 452 of IPC.

(2.) The prosecution's case, in short is that, the prosecutrix had lodged an FIR on 3.4.1993 that she was married with Mr. Mobin Ansari and she was working as chair person of Mahila Prakoshth Congress, Sarni and therefore the respondents No.1 and 2 were known to her. The respondent Vishambhar met her at Sarni for 2-3 times. Once he tried to do some vulgar act with the prosecutrix but on her abusing, he left her. Thereafter, Vishambhar gave a threat to her husband that his son would be kidnapped. On 16.11.1992, the prosecutrix was at her residence at Sarni and at about 1:00 a.m., she went to the door to answer the door bell, where she saw that the respondent Vishambhar Budhaulia, who held a revolver in his hand, closed the mouth of the prosecutrix by the piece of a cloth and threatened her that her son was in his possession and therefore, she should go with him. Also he took some ornaments and clothes of the prosecutrix from a box. He got the signatures appended by the prosecutrix on some blank papers. The respondent Liyakat was also present with the respondent Vishambhar, who participated in the crime. He took robbed property to the vehicle, which was parked in front of the house of the prosecutrix. The respondents No.1 and 2 took the prosecutrix into a forest near Bharat Bharti Vidhalayay and the respondent Vishambhar committed rape upon her. Thereafter, they took her to Bhopal and she was confined in Vishambhar Bhudhaulia's house. On 31.3.1993, the prosecutrix could rescue herself and she went to Betul by a train and informed the entire incident to her in-laws. She had also stated that the respondent Vishambhar committed rape with her for several times in his house. Since she was under threat therefore, she could not lodge any FIR. On 3.4.1993, she lodged an FIR in a written form and a case was registered. The statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She had also submitted an affidavit to support her statement.

(3.) The respondents No.1 and 2 had submitted some documents before the trial Court during the bail application that the prosecutrix had reported at Police Station, Sarni against her husband on the date on which she was alleged to be abducted. Thereafter, there is evidence that she went to Delhi and sent a notice to the editor of Lokmat Samachar with the help of her counsel Shri R.K. Bajwa of Delhi that the publication done by the editor of Lokmat Samachar was incorrect. She had given an affidavit dated 22.12.1992 that a false report was published due to instigation of her husband and she did not want to live with her husband. A letter was also submitted to show that the prosecutrix had sent a letter to D.G. Police that a false case was registered against the respondents No.1 and 2 and therefore, the case may be closed. Again, she had executed an affidavit dated 7.6.1993 to show that the allegations made in the FIR were incorrect. A copy of petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecutrix on 20.5.1993 and the prosecutrix prayed that the proceedings of the case may be dropped and proceedings of crime no.93/93 registered at Police Station, Sarni may be quashed.