KAMESHWAR BHUIYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 27.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II Dhanbad in S.T. No. 345 of 2007 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge for the alleged offence under Sections 376/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected and the petitioners were called upon to stand charge.

(2.) Prosecution story in short was that while the complainant-informant Rita Devi was staying at her matrimonial home, the petitioner No. 1 Kameshwar Bhuiya went there and informed about the serious illness of her mother and also that she was admitted at the Central Hospital Dhanbad, accordingly, she was asked to immediately accompany him, lest she would not see her mother. Relying upon the version of the petitioner No. 1 the complainant-informant immediately proceeded with him and arrived at "Putki More" late in the evening where she came across Vijay Lal Petitioner No. 3. Both the petitioners Kameshwar Bhuiya and Budhiya Bhuiya asked her to stay in the house of the petitioner No. 1 Kameshwar Bhuiya who undertook to take her to her mother in the morning. Relying upon the promise of the petitioners she came to the house of Kameshwar Bhuiya where she met his mother and the latter also narrated about the illness of her mother and that she was admitted in the hospital. The complainant further alleged that while she was sleeping in the night, the petitioner No. 1 Kameshwar Bhuiya committed rape on her with the aid of his mother Radhia Bhuiya and when she came to learn that her mother was quite alright and that she was very much there in her house, she went to her mother and narrated the occurrence. She narrated her woes to the police but when no action could be taken she filed a complaint petition which was referred to the police station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for institution of a case and pursuant to that Putki (Bhagabandh) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2006 was registered against all the three accused persons for the alleged offence under Sections 376/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against all of them.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the order impugned dated 27.6.2008 passed in S.T. No. 345 of 2007 only on the ground that no criminal liability under Section 376 of IPC can be fastened against the petitioner No. 2 Radhia Bhuiya and the petitioner No. 3 Vijay Lal against whom there was no allegation of commission of rape and the learned court erred by observing that offence of rape was attracted against them also.