HANSA GIR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The petitioners counsel submit that from the first report submitted by the prosecutrix to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phagwara, it is evident that the petitioners were not named. Even the name of petitioner number 6 was not mentioned, instead Ashok was named by her in the report, but subsequently after 33 days of the commission of the said offence, the complainant got her FIR recorded wherein she has named the petitioners including Bobby.

(2.) THE State counsel admitted that the prosecutirx has not given any explanation in her FIR or in the statement recorded by the Police as to why she could not name these petitioners in the report given to DSP Phagwara and on what basis/information she named the petitioners in the report lodged on 17.9.1997. He also submits that the case is now at the evidence stage and it is fixed for 13.2.1998 for recording the prosecution evidence. Mr. Gill admits that challan is presented under Section 376/342/148/149 IPC against all the petitioners and other co-accused persons and even the charge is framed by the trial Court.

(3.) SO far as petitioner No. 6 is concerned, from the order passed by the lower Court, it is evident that nude photos of the prosecutrix have been recovered at the instance of petitioner No. 6 which indicates the complicity of this petitioner in the commission of the offence. Hence his prayer is declined.