Rajasthan High Court
Kanchan vs State And Anr on 7 August, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:33596]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 625/2006
Kanchan S/o Shri Jundo, Aged about 54 years, R/o Gram Nagar,
Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through PP
2. Gambhir Singh S/o Mukandaram, R/o Khedli Gadasiya, Thana
Bhusawar, District Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. N. Meena, Adv. for
Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, PP
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 07/08/2024
The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC against
the judgment dated 18.04.2006 passed by the Additional District
& Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.3, Bharatpur, Camp Bayana,
Bharatpur(for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case
No.119/2005, whereby the trial court acquitted the respondent
No.2 for the offence(s) under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(G) and
120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court
vide judgment dated 18.04.2006 wrongly acquitted the petitioner
for the offence(s) under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(G) and 120-B
IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as
during the trial, levelled specific allegation of rape against the
respondent No.2 but the trial court wrongly evaluated of the
(Downloaded on 23/08/2024 at 10:25:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:33596] (2 of 2) [CRLR-625/2006]
statement of prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that the trial court wrongly considered the age of the
prosecutrix as 16 years old. As per medical evidence, her age was
between 13 to 15 years old. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submits that the trial court has not considered the evidence
of PW-3 Roshan Lal, PW-6 Harikishan and PW-7 Ramswaroop in
the right perspective. So, the judgment passed by the trial court
be set-aside and the respondent No.2 be convicted for the
offence(s) under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(G) and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the trial court while acquitting the respondent No.2
elaborately discussed the prosecution's evidence. So, no
interference is required in the matter of this court. So, the present
petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for both the parties.
The trial court while acquitting the respondent No.2 clearly
mentioned that the prosecutrix-Hem Lata has not levelled specific
allegation of rape against him. She only stated that he had left her
to Kota. Prosecutrix in her statement clearly stated that she had in
love and affection with Harish. So, in my considered opinion, the
trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the
respondent No.2. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is
liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
