KURDA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner-complainant against Judgment and Order dtd. 21/7/2005 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar (Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar) in Special Case No.23/2004 (State of Rajasthan vs. Bajrang Lal and Anr.) acquitting accused-respondent No. 2 - Bajrang Lal for charges under Ss. 363, 366, 366A and 376 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and accused-respondent No. 3 - Shish Ram for charges under Ss. 363, 366 and 366A of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by extending them benefit of doubt.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 27/1/2004, petitioner- complainant - Kurdaram (P.W. 4) submitted handwritten report (Ex.P/4) before the Police Station Khandela, District Sikar, wherein it was alleged that on 21/1/2004, his wife and children were sleeping in his house. His daughter - Mst. "U" aged 15 years was also sleeping there. In the morning at 6 O'clock, when his wife woke up, his daughter was not found. His family members searched her but did not find her. Their neighbour Bajrang Lal and brother-in-law of Bajrang Lal's sister, namely, Shishram, who had also come, were absconding from that day, who had abducted his daughter by luring her. They had suspicion upon them. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.16/2004 was registered for the offences under Sec. 363 and 366-A of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent No. 2 for the offences under Ss. 363, 366, 366A and 376 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and accused-respondent No. 3 for the offences under Ss. 363, 366 and 366A of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. The trial court framed charges and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dtd. 21/7/2005 acquitting accused-respondents for the alleged offences. Hence, this criminal revision petition was preferred by the petitioner-complainant.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondents.