SANDEEP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 323, 341 & 376/511 IPC against the accused-petitioner.

(2.) MR. Jai Kishan Yogi, the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner, has contended that the statement of the prosecutrix, even if taken to be true, does not make out an offence under Sections 376/511 IPC. Moreover, according to the site plan, the place of alleged incident was not convenient enough to commit an attempt to rape. According to learned counsel, if the place is taken to be true, the prosecutrix should have suffered certain injuries in her back. However, there is no medical evidence to show the fact that she had suffered any injury in her back. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the accused-petitioner is being falsely implicated in this case. Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner.