MOHD AYUB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Churu whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offence under Sections 341,323,325,354,504/34 IPC and 3(1)(X)(XI) SC/ST Act, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2008, Smt.Teeju Devi had lodged a written report at police station, Sujangarh wherein she had claimed that she lives with her husband and father-in-law. On 04.07.2008 at about 3.00 A.M. the present petitioner, alongwith other persons, came to their house and verbally abused her and her family members. She further claimed that they threatened the family members and told them that they will he dispossessed from their land. Moreover, she claimed that the present petitioner caused injuries on her body and outraged her modesty. On the basis of the said report a formal F.I.R was registered for the aforementioned offences. Since, the petitioner could not be apprehended, the police submitted a charge-sheet against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered himself before the trial court on 16.05.2011. The learned Judge framed the charges against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that allegedly the occurrence had taken place on 03.07.2008, yet the F.I.R was not lodged till 05.07.2008 i.e. after an inordinate delay of two days. Secondly, the police had started the proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C, in that proceedings the complainant did not reveal any fact about outraging the modesty. Thirdly, the learned counsel has vehemently contended that Section 3(1) (x) (xi) SC/ST Act, uses the words "in any place within public view". According to him, at the time when the incident takes place, the public must be present to view the incident. Since occurrence happened in the night, there was no public to view the incident. Hence, the charge for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act was unjustified.