RAJESHWAR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant filed a complaint to the police that his daughter was studying in 9th class. She had been missing since 16/9/2014. The police registered an FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC. The date of the victim's birth was found to be 10/1/1998 as per the school record and she was aged 16 years on the date of the incident. The victim's Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes mother said that the victim was in touch with Sunny and he might have kidnapped the victim. The police searched for Sunny, who disclosed that Vijay had kidnapped the victim and she was residing with him in his home. The Police searched for the victim and went to the house of Vijay, where his father was present.

(2.) Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused vide order dtd. 16/7/2018.

(3.) Being aggrieved from the order framing charge, the present revision has been filed by accused Rajeshwar Kumar asserting that the learned Trial Court misread the statement of the victim recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. She had attributed an inculpatory role to Vijay Kumar and did not disclose the name of the petitioner. Another statement was recorded by learned CJM on 9/2/2015 without assigning any reason, wherein, the petitioner was implicated. There was no extraordinary circumstance for recording another statement of the victim. This statement was recorded after 10 days. There was no mention of the petitioner in the FIR and the mother of the victim had expressed her suspicion against Sunny. The name of the petitioner was also not mentioned in the earlier statement. There was a conflict about the date of the incident which shows that the of statement of the victim was concocted. The victim was in touch with the main accused and she intended to marry him. The family of the victim was also aware of the fact that she was residing with rt Vijay Kumar-main accused. The victim narrated a false story in her supplementary statement on 9/2/2015; therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.