NIRMAL SONI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revision applications arising out of the same order were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners of both the revision applications call in question the legality of the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners of both the revision applications under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short 'the Code') for their discharge, has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to the present revisions, lies in a narrow compass and centre around kidnapping of the informant by the petitioners of the two revision applications. At the instance of the informant- Shaiba Khan @ Shama, a written report dated 07.12.2006 was lodged at the Mahila Thana, Hazaribagh bearing Sadar P.S. Case No.25 of 2006 under Sections 366 and 376(2)g of the Indian Penal Code with the allegation that on 06.11.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. while she was going to Pelawal to meet her Khala and reached near Laxmi Cinema in Hazaribag suddenly one white Maruti Van stopped near her and one Anju Soni after opening the gate of the vehicle asked the informant to sit in the vehicle. As she was known to said Anju Soni, she boarded the vehicle and disclosed him that she is going to Pelawal, upon which Anju Soni assured her to drop at Pelawal. When the informant entered into the vehicle, saw that one Shashank Soni was driving the vehicle and one Guttu Jain @ Rupendra Kumar Jain was sitting near him. Anju Soni and Nirmal Soni were found sitting at the rear seat of the vehicle. The above persons brought her to Ranchi and on enquiry they disclosed that they have brought her for the purpose of her marriage with Nishant Soni and when she objected, Guttu Jain @ Rupendra Kumar Jain (the petitioner) threatened her to kill. It is also alleged that by giving threatening to her, the accused persons brought her to Railway Station where Nishant Soni and Ashok Soni were present from before. Ashok Soni gave railway tickets to Nishant Soni and asked him to take her in the train. Guttu Jain (the petitioner) again threatened her not to raise Hulla in train otherwise she will be thrown out of the train. She was taken to Delhi by Nishant Soni. They stayed in Delhi in a room from 08.11.2006 to 20.11.2006 where she was forcibly raped several times by Nishant and Shashank. On 20.11.2006, at about 11.30 a.m. when Shashank was not present in room and Nishant was sleeping, she anyhow managed to flee away from there but by boarding a wrong bus came to Ajmer. She decided to disclose the entire incident to Police but Nishant Soni following her came there and tried to take her from there. She raised alarm whereafter Ajmer Police caught hold both of them and sent to jail. After getting information her parents came to Ajmer and brought her back to Hazaribagh.

(3.) On completion of investigation, the Police submitted final form exonerating all the accused persons from the case but on Complaint-cum-Protest Petition filed by the informant, the court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 366 and 376(2)g of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Before the Sessions court, the petitioners filed a petition for their discharge but the court below by order impugned, rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioners holding that there is sufficient prima facie evidence on record in order to frame charge under Sections 366 and 376(2)g of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Nishant Soni and Shashank Soni and sufficient evidence are also available against the other accused persons to frame charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, these revisions.