Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023/RJJD/010438]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 93/2023
1. Ganga Ram S/o Poona Ram, Aged About 60 Years, B/c
Rao R/o Ralawas Ps Karwad Jodhpur
2. Rekha D/o Moda Ram W/o Karan, Aged About 35 Years,
B/c Rao R/o Ralawas PS Karwad Jodhpur
3. Kamla W/o Moda Ram, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Rao R/o
Ralawas PS Karwad Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Lala Ram S/o Soma Ram, B/c Rao R/o Ralawas PS
Karwad Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neel Kamal Bohra, through V.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/04/2023
By way of filing the instant criminal revision, challenge has
been made to the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Special
Court, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Session Case
No.110/2022 whereby the learned Judge has allowed the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and made an order of
arraignment of petitioner as an additional accused.
Shri Neel Kamal Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order impugned is not in consonance with the
spirit of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR
2014 SC 1400, thereafter in a recent judgment passed by
[2023/RJJD/010438] (2 of 3) [CRLR-93/2023]
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira and
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.885/2019)
decided on 05.12.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
although there were allegations against them in the FIR and the
statement but after taking thorough investigation, Agency had
exonerated them and did not opt to charge-sheet them.
It is argued that the statements of the witnesses, on the
strength of which, the petitioners have been arraigned as an
accused are not at all credible and trustworthy so as to prosecute
the petitioners as additional accused along with the charge-
sheeted accused. He drew attention of this Court towards the
statement of the prosecuterix 'H' recorded under Section 161
thereafter 164 of Cr.P.C. and then during the trial.
The discrepancy and conflict in her statement goes to the
root of the case and therefore, this Court is of prima facie opinion
that before passing an order of impleading additional accused
other than the accused charge-sheeted, the quality of the
evidence must be more than as required at the stage of taking
cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice.
Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of
respondent-State.
Thus, issue notice to the respondent No.2 only, returnable
within a period of six weeks.
In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated
23.11.2022 passed by the Special Court, POCSO Act Cases,
[2023/RJJD/010438] (3 of 3) [CRLR-93/2023]
Jodhpur Metropolitan in Session Case No.110/2022 shall remain
stayed. There would be no bar on the trial Court to proceed
further in the matter of accused who are already facing trial.
(FARJAND ALI),J
31-Ashutosh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
