RAJAN GUPTA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has impugned order dated 24.4.2012 whereby she has been summoned to face trial under Section 120-B IPC with main accused Ashok @ Sonu for committing rape on the prosecutrix. Learned counsel contends that from a perusal of statement of prosecutrix, no conclusion can be arrived at regarding reasonable probability of conviction of petitioner Roshni Devi. According to her, allegation against the petitioner is merely that she asked prosecutrix to come to her place. No offence would thus made out. She further contends that prosecutrix has improved her version when she stepped into the witness box. Same is unworthy of reliance. Thus, court below committed a grave error while summoning the petitioner as an additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. She has relied upon the judgment of apex court reported as Sarabjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009(16) SCC 46 in support of her contention.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Fir in question was registered on the statement of Seema daughter of Rajbir. She stated that in the month of October 2010, petitioner Roshni Devi had come to her house. Main accused Ashok @ Sonu was living in her neighbourhood. Petitioner had played a role in calling prosecutrix to her place. She was thereafter subjected to rape by main accused Ashok @ Sonu. According to allegation, her nude photographs were taken with mobile phone. She was later threatened that in case she disclosed this fact to anybody, she would be killed. Out of fear, prosecutrix submitted to the demand of accused Ashok @ Sonu. She alleged that accused Ashok @ Sonu had committed rape on her in connivance of his maternal uncle Surender and maternal aunt Roshni Devi (petitioner herein). Prosecutrix was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. She, however, reiterated her version. On the basis of statement, trial court came to the conclusion that petitioner needed to be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Court observed that Roshni Devi was instrumental in procuring presence of prosecutrix enabling accused Ashok @ Sonu to commit rape. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Sarabjit Singh's case (supra) to contend that only when there is a reasonable probability of conviction, resort can be taken to Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning of additional accused. There can be no dispute about the law laid down in aforesaid judgment. However, keeping in view the fact that prosecutrix has stepped into witness box and reiterated her version and attributed specific role to the petitioner, I find no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction of this court. No other argument has been addressed.
(3.) IT appears that trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that petitioner needs to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial.;