RASEED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Raseed and Sameed, have preferred the instant revision petition against the order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the learned trial court accepted the protest petition of the complainant and has taken cognizance against the present petitioners under Sections 376 (2)(i) and 376D IPC and under Section 5 read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pocso Act').

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Rahul, who is brother of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR No. 3/2014, at police station Ramgarh, District Alwar under Sections 363, 366 and 342 IPC, against Hanif and Rukki, wife of Hanif with the allegations that on 3.1.2014, at about 12:00 PM in the night, Rukki, wife of Hanif kidnapped her sister from lawful guardianship. When the complainant came to know about disappearance of the prosecutrix, they searched her. At about 9:00 am, they received an information about her sister and found her coming from field, who told them that Hanif and his wife Rukki took her away with them and locked her in a house at Chirawa. She was kept locked in the room. In the morning, at about 8:00 am, on the pretext of call of nature, she ran away.

(3.) During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which the prosecutrix stated that the accused Hanif and the petitioners, namely Raseed and Sameed, had raped her. The supplementary statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded, in which she had alleged rape by the present petitioners and the co-accused Hanif. The call details of Hanif and Sameed were got verified and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused Hanif and his wife Rukki @ Ruksina under Section 363, 366A, 342, 376(2)(i) IPC and under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Pocso Act. However, after verifying the call details and the statement of the prosecutrix, the present petitioners Raseed and Sameed were not found to be involved in the crime.