- (1.) THE accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 323, 341 & 376/511 IPC against the accused-petitioner.
(2.) MR. Jai Kishan Yogi, the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner, has contended that the statement of the prosecutrix, even if taken to be true, does not make out an offence under Sections 376/511 IPC. Moreover, according to the site plan, the place of alleged incident was not convenient enough to commit an attempt to rape. According to learned counsel, if the place is taken to be true, the prosecutrix should have suffered certain injuries in her back. However, there is no medical evidence to show the fact that she had suffered any injury in her back. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the accused-petitioner is being falsely implicated in this case. Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. This court asked the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner to read out the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to the prosecutrix, while she was going to the house of Jagdish Saini to fetch butter milk, the accused-petitioner stopped her on her way and forcefully took her towards the mountains. He threw her on the ground, tore her cloths and unzipped his trouser. When she shouted for help, then her brother, who was near about, and others, rushed to her rescue. The fact that the accused-petitioner allegedly threw the prosecutrix on the ground and unzipped his trouser clearly makes a strong prima facie case against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 376/511. At the stage of framing of the charges, the Court is concerned only with the existence of a strong prima facie case. The defence that is available to the accused-petitioner cannot be looked into at the initial stage. Considering the statement of the prosecutrix, the learned Judge was certainly justified in framing the charge for offence under Sections 376/511 IPC. Thus, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to not to be influenced by the observations made by this court in this order while deciding the case finally. It is hoped that the learned trial court will appreciate the evidence in proper prospective and strictly in accordance with law.;