GUDDI @ KALO @ MUNESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed to challenge impugned order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the petitioners and two other persons, namely, Rakesh and Hemraj, has been partly allowed. The petitioners have been summoned to face trial as an additional accused and qua two others, it was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 made a complaint dated 20.09.2014 to Police levelling allegations of commission of rape upon her, on the basis of which, FIR No.317 dated 20.09.2014 was registered under Sections 376(2), 506, 385, 328 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Nitin, Rekha, Guddi, Hemraj and Rakesh. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed only against main accused, namely, Nitin. After filing final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the trial Court as PW2. She reiterated the same version as stated in the complaint. Thereafter, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning four persons, namely, Rekha, Guddi @ Kalo, Hemraj and Rakesh as additional accused to face trial. Said application was allowed qua the present petitioners vide order dated 14.07.2015, which is subject matter of challenge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of summoning has been passed without considering the fact that the prosecutrix did not approach the Court with clean hands as at the time of loding of FIR, she claimed herself to be minor whereas this fact was found to be false. Merely, the statement of the prosecutrix was not sufficient to summon the petitioners as an additional accused. Learned counsel also submits that the provisions of Section 376 IPC are not applicable against a women. The allegations levelled against the petitioners were found to be false at the initial stage but subsequently, only on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix but without having any fresh evidence, the petitioners have been summoned. Simply by alleging that the petitioners were involved in conspiracy to facilitate the main accused to commit rape they have been summoned. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners never blackmailed the prosecutrix for extracting money as has been alleged by her in the complaint as well as in her statement. There was delay of two years in lodging of the FIR and the version of the prosecution is highly doubtful. No evidence was collected with regard to mixing the tablets in the tea of the prosecutrix and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.