MOHAMMAD NASIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision owes its origin to Crime No. 39 of 1993 whereupon the petitioner has been charged by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, by his order dt. 31-7-1993 and directed to face trial and calendar of the case was formulated for recording of the prosecution evidence on 27-8-1993 and 28-8-1993.

(2.) The First Information Report broadly stated that the prosecutrix Sartaj Begum, lodged a written report with the Police Station Darhal Rajouri alleging therein that the accused Mohd. Nasir, who developed contacts with the prosecutrix, started to visit their house in absence of her father, who is working outside the State and started to stay in their house at times. On one night he had sexual intercourse forcibly with the prosecutrix and in the morning he fell at the feet of her mother assuring her, while taking Holy Quran in his hands, that he would marry the prosecutrix. After that he started coming regularly to their house and was having intercourse with her. After some months the accused came to their house with his father and confirmed the promise of his marriage with her, after again taking Holy Quran in their hands. On the intervening night of 3rd and 4th of June 1993, out of such agreed matrimonial relationship, she gave birth to a child, but the accused did not agree to marry her as a result of which a case under S. 376, Ranbir Penal Code was registered against him and on completion of the investigation the accused stood charge-sheeted, as mentioned above.

(3.) Aggrieved of the said order, this revision petition has been filed by the accused/ petitioner contending therein that the evidence collected and the material available on the record of the file, nowhere proved prima facie or otherwise any commission of offence by the petitioner/ accused under Sec. 376, R.P.C. It appears that the trial Judge has pre-conceived the idea of charge-sheeting the petitioner for the offence under Sec.376, R.P.C. and decided to charge-sheet him for such an offence. Although the trial Judge was not supposed to return the finding on the guilt or innocence of the accused at the stage of framing of the charge, yet it was incumbent upon the trial Judge to satisfy himself as to whether the reasonable grounds for trying the accused existed and as he has not done so therefore, the order impugned has been rendered illegal for quashment. The trial Judge did not also hear the petitioner which could be reflected from the fact that he totally refused to hear the counsel for the accused/ petitioner on the framing of charge. Even the impugned order does not show that the arguments have been heard by the trial Judge from the counsel for the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that in case the proceedings are allowed to continue in the trial Court, the petitioner shall not get a fair trial from that Court and in all probabilities prejudicial and biased judgment would be delivered against the petitioner.