[2025:RJ-JD:38133]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 415/2025 Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Nethrana Police Station, Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh (Raj)

(Currently Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Rupram S/o Rameshwar, R/o Nethrana, Bhadra, Gogamedi, Dist. Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.

Mr. Ankur Limba HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/08/2025

1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by petitioner Pawan Kumar against the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.135/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Hanumangarh whereby, the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner to summon the electronic records from the complainant was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that FIR No.147/2023 was registered at Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Ruparam, resident of village Nethrana, alleging abduction and sexual assault of his minor daughter. The complainant alleged that on 30.07.2023 at about 2:50 p.m., his daughter, a Class XII student pursuing RSCIT training at Kumar Computer Centre, had left home for her class and was thereafter abducted near Guhad Street in a Maruti car bearing registration No.HR-59-5601. It was further alleged that she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused persons and later abandoned in an unconscious condition near Thakurji Temple. On the basis of the said allegations, offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 506, and 34 IPC along with Sections 3/4(11) and

5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act were registered against the accused.

2.1. During the trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 21.06.2024 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of summons for production of certain electronic records, namely communications exchanged between the complainant and the victim through various social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and multiple IDs such as Rupa Rajasthani, My Life Line, and Cute Jatti 739) over the mobile Nos.9680249211 and 9829862321, covering the period May 2023 to July 2023. The petitioner asserted that these records were indispensable to the defence, as they would demonstrate patterns of inducement, manipulation, and blackmail allegedly resorted to by the complainant and the victim.

2.2. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Cases, Hanumangarh, by order dated 09.09.2024, dismissed the said application on the ground that the stage for summoning additional documents had passed.

2.3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and carefully examined the relevant material. It emerges that the trial Court failed to consider the significance of the electronic records to the defence, as well as the fact that the petitioner, being in custody, was unable to secure their production at an earlier stage. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

3. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and scrutiny of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 suffers from manifest legal infirmity and reflects a clear non-application of judicial discretion. The following factors weigh decisively in favour of the petitioner:

a) The records sought by the petitioner are specific, identified, and asserted to be in the possession of the complainant/State. Their production is necessary for ensuring a fair opportunity to the defence to establish its case.

(b) The refusal to summon these records has the effect of foreclosing relevant evidence which bears directly on the credibility of the prosecution version. Such refusal prejudices the right of the accused to a fair trial, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.

(c)