DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant S.B. Criminal appeal is preferred by accused- petitioner aggrieved from order dtd. 28/6/2019 Sessions case No. 5/2018 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Ajmer, whereby charge under Ss. 376 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act was framed against the petitioner. This is second appeal by the petitioner-accused.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (2) WLC (SC) would submitted that when accused having sexual relations with prosecutrix on promise of marriage and accepting prosecutrix before a deity as wife and then considering the vital aspect of the matter no charge under Sec. 376 IPC is made out. He further relied upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Satvinder Pal Kaur @ Sonia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1097, Dr. Farook Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Criminal Revision Petition No. 856/2012, (5/4/2023), Pradeep Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1527/2018 (14/9/2018) and Maneesh Purushwani Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 243/2019 (6/2/2019) and would submitted that on the basis of false allegation if a report was registered by the complainant wherein allegation of sexual relations with false promise was levelled against the petitioner, them no case of rape is made out. He further submitted that prosecutrix was an adult lady having age of more than 35 years and she admitted her relations with petitioner as a result of a long-standing relationship, therefore, no charge is made out. He further referred the judgment in case of Pramod Suryabhan Panwar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1165/2019 and submitted that no incident was ever taken place in public eye or in public view, therefore, charge under Sec. 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act is not made out. Learned Counsel for petitioner also relied upon judgments in case of Naim Ahamed Vs. State, Crimnal Appeal No. 257/2023, Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 635/2020 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1443/2018, Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2021 Cr.L.R. (SC) 805, Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, AIR 2023 SC 2480, Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2006 SC 1267, Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 155 and Ashrafi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 742 and submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances has closed the case wherein charges were made in similar fashion. He further referred the judgment of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in case of Taj Mohammed Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2017(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 94, Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwara Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2017(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 31, Mahesh Mathuria Vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 285/2019 (10/4/2019), Vimlesh @ Mota Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2022 (20/7/2022), Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2022(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 737, Siyaram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2022(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1681, Radhakrishan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4952/2020 (23/2/2022) and submitted that in similar facts and circumstances accused were discharged or acquitted. He further submitted that the Trial Court has committed a serious error while framing the charge against the petitioner.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.