CHORU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) , Bikaner whereby, the learned Trial Judge accepted the application filed by the prosecution and directed summoning of the petitioners as additional accused in the case alongwith the charge-sheeted accused Navratan. Facts in brief are that the complainant Khetpal lodged a written report at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner on 23.11.2013 alleging inter alia that his daughter Sushri 'S' was married to Gajendra Suthar on 18.11.2013. The accused reside in the complainant's neighbourhood. Navratan was keeping an evil eye on Sushri 'S' since long. She had come to the maternal home on 21.11.2013 but was not seen in the house on the next morning. The complainant thereupon, started a search for his daughter. When inquiry was made from the accused persons, Choru Lal told the complainant that his son had succeeded in achieving his goal and that he could not do anything about it. As per the complainant, Navratan, in conspiracy with his father, mother and wife abducted his daughter alongwith her gold & silver ornaments as well as cash. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.425/2013 was registered at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, the I.O. concluded that the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC were made out against the accused Navratan and filed a charge-sheet only against him in the court concerned. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner from where, the same was transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) , Bikaner for trial. Charges were framed against the accused Navratan for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At that stage, the complainant submitted an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. in the trial court with a prayer to summon the accused petitioners as additional accused in the case. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 27.07.2015 which is assailed in the instant revision.

(2.) Shri P.K. Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecutrix Sushri 'S' is a major married woman. She was having a long standing love affair with Navratan and eloped with him just three days after her forced marriage with Gajendra Suthar. She was traced out on 28.11.2013. When the I.O. noted her apparel and general condition, she was wearing all her ornaments. Her statement was recorded by the I.O. on 28.11.2013 and in such statement, she categorically stated that she was having a prevailing friendship with Navratan for the last 6-7 years. Neither did Navratan abduct her nor was she subjected to any immoral act by Navratan. Thereafter, she was allowed to go with her father. Before being traced out by the I.O., the lady suo motu appeared before the CJM, Sikar and submitted an application dated 27.11.2013 mentioning therein that she had gone with Navratan of her own free will without any threat duress or coercion and that the FIR No.435/2013 lodged by her family members was based on false aspersions. The lady was later on examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with the present case on 07.12013 and in such statement, she changed her version and alleged that on the night of 21.11.2013, while she had returned from her matrimonial home to her father's house, Navratan called on her mobile at 03.30 am. and coerced her to come out of the house without telling anybody. He threatened that in case she hesitated, he would kill her family members. She knew Navratan from before because he used to live in the neighbourhood. She alleged that Navratan caught hold of her hair and forcibly boarded her into a car in which, Leeladhar was present from before. Leeladhar gagged her mouth and threatened that she would be killed if she shouted. She was taken to Jaipur. The car was parked at the parking lot of the Jaipur Airport and then, she was taken to Mumbai by flight. From Mumbai, they boarded a bus and went to Pune. At Pune, she was kept in a hotel for two days where, the accused Navratan established forcible sexual relations with her. During this period, Choru Lal, Kamla and Shashi used to call Navratan and the lady allegedly overheard them telling Navratan that he should not bother and should freely continue his sexual romp with Sushri'S'. Choru Lal had allegedly given a sum of Rs.20, 000/- to Navratan with an insinuation that Sushri 'S' would not be allowed to live respectably either in her matrimonial home or at her father's house. Navratan did not allow her to talk with anybody. She was kept tied up. They left Pune on 24.11.2013 and came to Jaipur via Mumbai and Ahmedabad. He picked up his car from Jaipur and took her to Sikar. There, he engaged a lawyer. Choru Lal called Navratan and told him that he should somehow get a favourable statement of the girl recorded and if she hesitates then she should be killed. However, the lawyer at Sikar advised that her statement could be recorded only at the Bikaner court. They came down to Dungargarh from Sikar. Navratan's parents and Shashi called Navratan and told that the situation was not favourable and thus, they should stay back and the girl should be coerced into giving a favourable statement and then she may be ditched. Thereafter, she was dropped off at the Museum Circle, Bikaner. Leeladhar came around and administered some intoxicating drug to her. Then she was pressurised and taken to the police station. She was threatened that Leeladhar's father was in police and that she should give a favourable statement or else she would be killed. She further alleged that her maternal relatives were still being threatened that if they did not change their statements, then they would be killed. She further alleged that Navratan took away her ornaments and sold them. The I.O., however, did not find the entire theory put up by the girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. substantiated and accordingly, the offence under Section 376 IPC is applied against Navratan. The tower location of Leeladhar for the questioned period showed his presence at Bikaner from 211.2013 to 28.11.2013 and accordingly, the I.O. did not find him involved in the case. None of the petitioners were found involved in the entire sequence of the alleged offensive activities and thus, a chargesheet was filed only against Navratan. As stated above, the trial court exercised powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the petitioners, and summoned them to face trial by the order dated 27.07.2015 which is challenged in the instant revision.

(3.) Shri P.K. Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that ex-facie, the story set out in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is totally false, fabricated and cooked up. He urged that on the face of the record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix was having a long standing love affair with the accused Navratan from well before her marriage. She was married to Gajendra Suthar against her wishes. She returned from her matrimonial home just three days after her marriage and clandestinely eloped with her lover Navratan. He contended that the story put-forth by the prosecutrix in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Navratan called her in the night of 21.11.2013 and forced her to come out of the house under the threat of killing her family members is palpably false and fabricated. Had there been an iota of truth in the said theory, the girl could have immediately raised an alarm and got Navratan apprehended then and there. As per him, the fact that the prosecutrix left her father's house at 030 am. while taking away her ornaments, cash, etc. clearly establishes that the case is one of voluntary elopement of a mature married woman with her paramour Navratan and that the story of abduction under threat and duress, etc. is totally fictional. He further contended that the I.O., conducted thorough investigation and found that the allegation of Leeladhar having accompanied the prosecutrix and Navratan to Mumbai is false because the foolproof evidence in form of tower detail location of Lelladhar's mobile phone established his presence at Bikaner right from 22.11.2013 to 28.11.201 He further urged that the prosecutrix was a free agent at the time when she appeared at the police station i.e. on 28.11.201 The accused admittedly did not accompany her. Had any kind of threat or duress been exercised on the prosecutrix by the accused persons, then she could have spoken out about the same when she appeared at the police station and gave her first statement on 28.11.201 He further urged that the prosecutrix accompanied the accused Navratan from Jaipur to Mumbai in a flight. Large number of security personnel are deployed at the airport and if at all, the lady was being abducted against her wishes, she could have easily raised an alarm at the airport. However, she kept silent and voluntarily accompanied Navratan to Mumbai and Pune where they stayed together in a hotel and indulged in extramarital carnal relations. He thus urged that ex-facie, the entire case of the prosecution regarding Navratan having abducted the prosecutrix under the threat of killing her maternal family members and the petitioners having conspired and facilitated such acts of Navratan is nothing but a figment of imagination and hence, the order impugned should be quashed and set aside.