- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 363, 366A, 384, 376(2)(g) and 120B IPC against the petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 26.04.2011, Krishna Ram lodged a FIR wherein he claimed that in the night of 24.04.2011, his daughter, the prosecutrix (name withheld) was sleeping with her sister-in-law in his house. However, in the morning, they did not find his daughter in the house. He has suspicion that she may have been enticed and taken away by Bhanwar Lal and Nemaram. A formal FIR was chalked out for offences under Sections 363, 366A and 120B IPC. However, subsequently after the recovery of the prosecutrix, offences under Sections 376 (2)(g) and 384 IPc were also added. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the present petitioner and Suganaram. After going through the evidence contained in the charge-sheet, vide order dated 26.11.2011, the learned Judge framed the charges mentioned-above. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that there is no evidence in the charge-sheet for framing the charge under Section 376(2) (g) read with Section 120B IPC. According to the prosecutrix, she had been subjected to gang rape by Nemaram and Sadiq Master. Hence, the learned Judge has erred in framing the charge for offence under Section 376 (2)(g) read with Section 120B IPc.;