SONA KANWAR SAN KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Perused the impugned order dated 6-8-1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sikar, whereby she after hearing the parties and perusing the challan papers and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, held that there exists sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused petitioner Smt. Sona Kanwar, for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 120B I.P.C. The contention of Shri Anup Dhand is that there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect her with the crime. On the other hand, Smt. Geeta Devi mother of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. recorded on 28-5-1996, has stated that Smt. Sona had left for Surat on 14-5-1996. Shri Dhand has asserted that the accused petitioner had submitted before the learned trial judge the invitation card of the marriage of Nirmal with Ku. Sushma, which was to be held on 18-5-1996 at Ahmedabad and another invitation of the marriage of Nirmal with Sushama which was to be solemnized on 11-5-1996, as also the railway tickets, to prima facie show that on 17-5-1996 the accused petitioner was not present in Laxmangarh, but the learned trial Judge committed gross error in not considering those documents at the time of hearing arguments for framing the charge.

(2.) On the other hand Shri Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Judge has given detailed reasons for framing the charge against the petitioner and that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the record of the trail court, including the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. Prosecutrix Ku. Tulsi in her settlement dated 28-51996 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. as also in her statement dated 6- 6-1996 recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C, has stated that accused Manoj Kumar used to call her through the accused petitioner Smt. Sona and on 13-5-1996 Smt. Sona talk her in the temple of Rani Sati Dadi where Manoj Kumar asked her to marry with him, but she declined and said that her marriage has already been fixed with some other person. On that, Manoj Kumar threatened that he will kill her as also her family member. The prosecutrix Ku. Tulsi further stated that she asked Manoj Kumar to return her two letters which she had written to him but the latter did not return those letters. Again on 1.7-5-1996 she was called through Smt. Sona (accused petitioner) in the temple of Dakania, from where on the pretext of giving those letters she was abducted to Sikar and other places and rape was also committed by Manoj Kumar. Smt. Geeta Devi in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., has also stated that Smt. Sona had taken Tulsi to the temple. However, she stated that on 14-5-1996 Smt. Sona had gone to Surat. The railway tickets filed by the petitioner, are not reservation tickets and her name does not find mention therein. Moreover, simply on the basis of the marriage card of Nirmal with Ku. Sushma, without enquiry it cannot be held at the stage of framing of charge that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is reliable or trustworthy.