PINKY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is complainant in an FIR registered against Sonu and one another Sonu son of Hawa Singh. The allegations against the said accused are that they used to indulge in teasing the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., after getting her statement recorded in the Court as PW -1 for summoning Poni, Pardeep, Naveen and Jagdeep as additional accused alleging that the said additional accused had connived with the main accused and are, thus, liable for conviction for offence of gang rape. The trial Court has taken into consideration the statement of the petitioner in her complaint Ex. P1, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. P2 and her statement made in the Court as PW -1. The allegations against the private respondents are that Jagdeep is owner of STD, Lalit and Poni gave recording of her conversation to Sonu, one of the main accused. As such, they were prima facie guilty of having conspired with the other accused. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and carefully considered the allegations against the persons sought to be added as additional accused.

(2.) IT is admitted fact that the above said persons have not been attributed any role in the act of rape but the allegation of conspiracy are being levelled against them in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Petitioner seems to have not attributed any part to the above said accused sought to be added. For the purpose of constituting an offence of conspiracy, the evidence under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is required to be produced. The circumstances of the present case do not indicate the existence of sufficient material warranting prima facie conviction of the proposed accused. Even if the allegation of the petitioner are presumed to be correct to some extent, still, it will not be possible for the Court to convict the added accused for conspiracy of rape.