SANCHITA @ SHILPI & ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.152/2013, whereby the application filed by the accusedpetitioners under section 91 CrPC for summoning the call details of various mobile numbers belonging to the petitioners and parents of the prosecutrix, has been dismissed.

(2.) The accused-petitioners are facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 370(4), 376D IPC, 5(g)/6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act' hereinafter), 342, 354A, 370(2)f, 506, 509/34, IPC read with section 109/120B IPC and section 5(g)/6,7/8 read with section 17 of POCSO Act have moved an application before the trial court and demanded that the call details of various mobile numbers for the period starting from 01.01.2013 to 16.08.2013 be summoned from the respective service providers. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order, therefore, the petitioners have filed this criminal misc. petition while claiming the following reliefs:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are facing trial for the serious offences and, therefore, the call details of the numbers mentioned in the application are required to be summoned by the court so that the accused-petitioner may have a proper opportunity to prepare their defence. It is contended that the application filed by the petitioners for summoning the call details of the mobile numbers of the accused-petitioners from the service provider has wrongly been rejected by the trial court without giving any cogent reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the accusedpersons have right to defend their life and personal liberty and in order to defend that it is imperative that all the evidence, which is required to defend, should be examined by the court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the call details of the mobile numbers, sought to be summoned by the accused-petitioners are necessary and desirable for the purpose of trial, however, the trial court has rejected the said application without considering the necessity and desirability of the said call details.