LAWS(RAJ)-2005-4-113

SHARAWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 07, 2005
SHARAWAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/401, CrPC, the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, district Hanumangarh (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.3/2004, by which the trial Court dismissed the application under Sec. 311, Crimial P.C. filed by the petitioner for further cross-examination of prosecutrix Rampyari alias Pyari.

(2.) The petitioner, alongwith co-accused, is facing trial before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 376,109 and 114 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape on the prosecutrix Rampyari and his wife abetted the crime. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 15.04 2004 wherein she gave evidence against the petitioner and co-accused. During pendency of the trial, an application under Sec. 97, Crimial P.C. was submitted by Smt.Sheto Bai, the grandmother of the prosecutrix before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tibbi for recovery of the prosecutrix, whereupon she was recovered and her statement was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tibbi on 03.09.2004, wherein she stated that earlier, on being threatened by her Mausi (mother's sister), she gave statement against the petitioner and co-accused, who are her material grand-parents. She also filed an application and an affidavit before the trial Court on 21.02.2005 stating and deposing therein that on being persuaded by her Mausi, she gave statement against the petitioner and the co-accused Mahendra Kaur, who are her maternal grand-parents and stated that petitioner Sharawan Singh never committed rape on her. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. for re-examination of the prosecutrix, which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.02.205. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned, statement given by the prosecutrix before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tibbi as also the application and affidavit submitted by the prosecutrix before the trial Court.