Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Nosad Khan @ Sonu - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1300 of 2016
Decided On : 16-11-2017
CRIMINAL LAW - CHARGE FRAMING - SECTION 161 AND 164 CRPC - SECTION 363 AND 366A IPC - SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM'S STATEMENTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT DISCHARGE OF THE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused of kidnapping and abducting a minor girl, challenged the framing of charges against him under Sections 363 and 366A IPC. The victim initially stated that she voluntarily accompanied the accused, but later claimed that she was intoxicated and taken to his village against her will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC to be dubious and unbelievable, considering it an embellishment that could not be accepted. The court deemed the victim's initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, which indicated her voluntary actions, to be more credible.
Issues: 1. Whether the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC, alleging intoxication and abduction, was credible. 2. Whether the victim's initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, indicating voluntary actions, was more reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC was unreliable due to its drastic change in narrative and the implausibility of the intoxication and abduction claims. The court considered the victim's initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, which lacked the necessary inferences for framing charges against the accused, to be more credible.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, quashed the impugned order framing charges against the accused, and discharged him of the offenses under Sections 363 and 366A IPC.
Sandeep Mehta, J.
By way of this revision, the petitioner accused Nosad Khan @ Sonu has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 17.9.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 13/2016 whereby, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C.
2. No-one has appeared to oppose the revision on behalf of the respondent No. 2 despite service.
3. Facts in brief:-
The respondent No. 2 Dilip Khan lodged a report at the P.S. Mahamandir on 1.2.2016 alleging inter alia that the accused petitioner kidnapped his minor daughter Sushri 'R' on 31.1.2016 at about 2 O'clock and took her away to the village Sayla with the intention of establishing sexual relations with her. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 40/2016 was registered at the P.S. Mahamandir for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C. The victim was traced out on the very day of filing of the report. Her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day wherein she stated that the petitioner Nosad used to visit her aunt's house which was located in the neighbourhood for the last 4 to 5 months and thus, she knew him. On 31.1.2016 she had gone to Reliance Fresh Store for purchasing vegetables. She called Nosad Khan on mobile and told him that she was desirous of living with him and thus, he should come and take her away. On this, Nosad Khan came to the Krishi mandi on foot. From there, they voluntarily boarded a local city bus and went to the Bus Stand from where they took another bus and reached to Nosad Khan's village at about 8.30 PM. At that time, nobody was present in his house. Both of them took food and then went to sleep. Nosad did not commit any untoward act with her. She clearly expressed that she was desirous of marrying Nosad Khan but was afraid of her family members. Nosad had provided her a mobile phone which she had returned to him. The story appears to have taken a turn when the victim's statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 3.2.2016. In such statement, the victim stated that she had gone to Reliance Fresh Store on 31.1.2016 at about 4 O'clock. There, a boy named Sonu (Nosad) met her. He gave her some intoxicant mixed in water which she consumed and became unconscious. The accused took her to some village and locked her inside a room. The Police came there and saved her. She categorically stated that she was unable to recall the exact scene and the manner in which, Sonu took her to his village. Based on these as pertions made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C. The learned trial court framed charge against the petitioner in the same terms by the impugned order dated 17.9.2016 which is assailed in the instant revision.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Gokulesh Bohra representing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned order as well as the Challan papers.
5. Suffice is to say that both the previous statements of the victim available on the charge-sheet; one recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 and the other recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 are of the same evidentiary worth. Both are previous statements within the meaning of the Evidence Act. The first statement of the victim recorded on the very day of lodging of the F.I.R. clearly indicates that she herself called the accused and then voluntarily accompanied him to his village. If the said statement is considered as true on its face value, apparently the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the accused. However, as stated above, the victim changed the story drastically while being examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 as stated above. On appreciating the material available on reco
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
