GAFFOR KHAN Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the order dated 14.05.2015 passed in challan, titled, State vs. Keshav Ram and others that was pending before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Batote (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) arising out of FIR bearing No. 114/2013 for commission of offences under sections 363, 344 and 109 RPC of Police Station, Batote, by virtue of which, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the challan mentioned above for the commission of offence of rape.

(2.) Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds those have been taken in the petition. Further, he has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not the accused in the challan initially and also the prosecutrix has never deposed about the commission of any offence committed by the petitioner in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate on 26.10.2013. He further submitted that during investigation, the petitioner never figured in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. nor in a challan that was filed after investigation and further that learned trial court has passed the order impugned without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without following the mandate of law. Mr. Singh has relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh and others v State of Punjab and others. Mr. Sandeep Singh , learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has also submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial court by virtue of which only two accused were convicted and all others have been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 22.07.2020.

(3.) Mr. Jamrodh Singh, learned GA appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the same judgment.