MANFOOL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 17/9/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case No. 21/2022 (CIS No. 100/2021) whereby the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 148, 364 in alternative 364/149, 302 in alternative 302/149 and 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality while framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid. It is submitted that the incident happened on 31/5/2021 at 3 PM whereas the FIR was lodged on 1/6/2021 at about 11.15 AM, therefore, there has been a delay of about 19-20 hours in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation for the said delay. It is further submitted that the complainant has produced eye witnesses, namely Sohan Ram and Shyamlal and both the eye witnesses have not named the petitioner in their statements. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was also not present at the place of incident. There was no pre-meeting of minds between the accused persons. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged criminal conspiracy. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Criminal Revision Petition may be allowed and the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the reply to the notice under Sec. 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the father of the present petitioner, who is the owner of the Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ 43 GA 2245 (which was used for abduction of Ramswaroop), specifically stated that the said vehicle was being driven by the petitioner on 31/5/2021 and it is the petitioner who was in possession of the said vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the offending vehicle was recovered from the petitioner and the learned Trial Court after considering all the material available on record has rightly passed the order framing charges against the petitioner. Lastly, it was prayed that the present revision petition may be rejected.