ARJUN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegation against the petitioner is that on 12.6.2005, he met the prosecutrix Saroj @ Rani daughter of Satya Parkash at the bus stand of Hisar, where she had gone to inquire her result of 10+2 examination. The petitioner, who was a tantrik (Charmer) used to treat the prosecutrix during her ailment by tying tabiz (locket) around her hand. In this way, the petitioner was known to the prosecutrix. The petitioner again asked the prosecutrix that one more tabiz is to be tied to her to complete the treatment. Open this, he tied a tabiz on her hand on 12.6.2005 when she met him. Thereafter, she did not know where the petitioner took her as she become unconscious. She regained consciousness on 13.6.2005 and she found herself in a temple in Lachmangarh situated in Rajasthan. She found Arjun and Radhey Sham-accused present before her. The prosecutrix noticed that both the accused have committed rape upon her. On 13.6.2005, Arjun left the place after saying about solemnization of her marriage with Radhey Sham and then turned back in the night. All the three remained in the temple on the night of 13.6.2005. On the following day i.e. on 14.6.2005, the prosecutrix telephonically contacted at her residence and disclosed the whole story. It has further come in the statement of the prosecutrix that both the accused in connivance with each other after tying a tabiz (locket) upon her hand abducted her and on the allurement of solemnisation of marriage, committed rape upon her.

(2.) ON the basis of her statement, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 366/376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After three days of the present occurrence, the prosecutrix committed suicide on 17.6.2005. Another case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner-Arjun Singh, Radhey Sham and one Mohinder vide FIR No. 257 dated 30.9.2005 on the statement given by the father of the prosecutrix. The petitioners have been discharged by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated 15.2.2006 at the time of framing of charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the accused were charged under Sections 366/376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence is being recorded by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar in which only four formal witnesses have been examined and two witnesses have been given up as per the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. The prosecution has not collected any evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage whether the prosecutrix was minor or major on the date of commission of the crime. Since the case is at the stage of recording of evidence, it would not be appropriate to make any comments on the merits of the case lest it may not prejudice the case of either party at the trial. The petitioner is behind the bars since 14.6.2005 i.e. for the last one year and ten months. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.