Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pappu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19231) on 21 April, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:19231]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2471/2025

Pappu Ram S/o Hema Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Bithuda
Kallan, Ps Marwar Junction, Dist. Pali, Raj.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.          Hajja Ram @ Banshi Lal S/o Narayan Lal, R/o Bithuda
            Kallan, Ps Marwar Junction, Dist. Pali, Raj.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Aidan Choudhary
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

21/04/2025

1. By way of filing the criminal misc. petition being under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following

reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Learned Court in Cr. Case No.75/2024 dismissing petitioner's application filed under Sec.216 of CrPC may kindly be quashed and sets aside and learned trial court may may be directed to frame the charges for the offences under section 458 of IPC, sections 9(g)/10 & 11(i)/12 of POCSO Act against the accused respondent as per the statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC by allowing the application filed by the petitioner under section 216 of Cr.P.C.

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 06.02.2024,

Pappu Ram S/o Hema Ram submitted a written complaint at P.S.

[2025:RJ-JD:19231] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2471/2025]

Marwar Junction alleging inter alia that on 05.02.2024 when his

daughters namely 'S', aged about 15 years and 'Sh', aged about

16 years went to Bara to collect fodder, Rakesh S/o Javari Lal,

Hajja Ram S/o Narayan, Nemaram S/o Bora Ram and Mahendra

S/o Shankar unauthorizedly entered into the Bara and started

teasing and molesting them. Rakesh S/o Javari Lal had taken bite

on the hand of the 'S' with his teeth. Upon this, 'S' and 'Sh'

started shouting loudly. Hearing their shouts, Jasoda S/o Shankar

Lal, Pushpa and Kasudi D/o Javari Lal and their other family

members reached to the Bara. However, by that time, above

named culprits ran away from the place of incident. Later on, at

about 11:00 pm. Dayaram S/o Babu Lal, Arjun, Bhima Ram S/o

Javari Lal, Javari Lal, Ram Prasad S/o Narayan Lal alongwith few

other persons illegally entered into the house of the Pappu Ram

laced with blunt weapons. Dayaram caused injuries to Champa

Devi with blunt weapon (lathi). When the accused persons were

pushed by the petitioner and Bhanaram out of the house, they

threatened to kill them and commit sexual assault upon his

daughters.

The Investigating Agency on 26.07.2024, file chargesheet

against the accused persons namely Rakesh, Nemaram, Mahendra

and Hajjaram (respondent No.2) for the offences under Sections

143, 447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. At the time

when the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons

Hajjaram (respondent No.2) was absconding. In view thereof, his

bail bonds were confiscated and warrant of arrest was issued

against him.

[2025:RJ-JD:19231] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2471/2025]

Rakesh, Nemaram, Mahendra faced trial before the

competent criminal Court for the offences under Sections 143,

447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The competent

criminal Court vide order dated 23.10.2024, after conducting

regular trial against above named accused persons, acquitted

them from the charges.

When the trial against the above named accused persons

was concluded, Hajjaram (respondent No.2) appeared before the

learned trial Court on 16.01.2025. The trial against him thereafter

commenced and he was charged for the offences under Sections

447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. After framing of

the charges against Hajjaram (respondent No.2), the petitioner-

complaint moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. with a

prayer for framing of the charges against him for the offence

under Sections 458 IPC and section 9(g)/10, 11(i)/12 of POCSO

Act instead of Sections 447, 509 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO

Act.

The learned trial Court by a detailed order dated 01.03.2025

was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner under

216 Cr.P.C.

Challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated

01.03.2025 passed by the learned trial Court, learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that as per the statements of the victims

recorded under various Sections of Cr.P.C., the incident took place

at 07:00 pm in the night (after sunset) with the preparation of

causing harm, assault to the victims. The offence committed by

the accused - respondent No.2 is thus punishable under Section

[2025:RJ-JD:19231] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2471/2025]

458 IPC. Further, at the time of incident the victims were all alone

in their Bara. The accused tried to take advantage/benefit of their

loneliness to outrage their modesty, therefore the act of the

accused- respondent No.2 comes under the purview of Section

509 and Section 11(i)/12 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that Section 216

Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court to alter or add any charge at any

time before pronouncement of judgment. Therefore, looking to the

allegations levelled against the respondent No.2, the learned trial

Court ought to have allowed the application filed under Section

216 Cr.P.C by the petition.

Lastly, learned counsel contended that the learned trial Court

has committed grave error in not framing the charges against the

petitioners under relevant Sections of IPC and POCSO Act,

therefore, the impugned order dated is liable to be quashed and

set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

arguments placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Nallapareddy

Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P." reported in 2020 12 SCC 467.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the

material available on record.

The relevant portion of the impugned order dated

01.03.2025 passed by the learned trial court while rejecting the

application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow

for ready reference:

[2025:RJ-JD:19231] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2471/2025]

"------ ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd gLrxr izdj.k esa iwoZ esa dqy pkj vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ftuesa ls rhu vfHk;qDrx.k ;Fkk jkds"k] usekjke o egsUnz dh gn rd bl U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 23-10-2024 dks xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk pqdk gS ,oa vfHk;qDr gtkjke mQZ ca"khyky ds fo:) fopkj.k "ks'k jgus ls mldks fnukad 28-01-2025 dks vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 447] 354] 323 Hkk-na-la- ,oa /kkjk 7@8 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr vkjksi fojfpr dj lquk;s o le>k;s x;sA izdj.k lk{; vfHk;kstu ds izdze ij fu;r gSA gLrxr izkFkZuk i= ds ek/;e ls ifjoknh i{k ;g dFku dj jgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk jkf= esa ifjoknh ds ckMs esa tcjr izos"k dj ckn rS;kjh ihfMrkvksa ds lkFk lkeqfgd ySafxd geyk dkfjr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDr gtkjke mQZ ca"khyky dks /kkjk 447 Hkk-na-la-

ds LFkku ij /kkjk 458 Hkk-na-la-] /kkjk 7@8 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ds LFkku ij /kkjk 9 (G)@10 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] /kkjk 509 Hkk-na-la- ,oa /kkjk 11 (i)@12 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA bl lanHkZ esa ;g lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd vkjksi ds izdze ij vuql/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk ,df=r dh x;h lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkrs gSaA tgka rd /kkjk 458 Hkk-na-la- dk iz"u gS] bl laca/k esa esjs }kjk ihfMrkvksa ,oa vU; xokgku ds /kkjk 161 na-iz-la- ds c;kuks dk voyksdu dj fy;k x;k gS ftlesa dgha Hkh ;g vadu ugha fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk ckn rS;kjh vkjksfir d`R; fd;k x;k gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 458 Hkk-na-la- ds tks vko";d rRo gS os Hkh gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxq ugha gksrs gSaA tgka rd lkeqfgd ySafxd geys dk iz"u gSA nksuks ihfMrkvksa }kjk ek= jkds"k iq= tojhyky ij gh NsMNkM djus dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k gSA vr% mDr dFkuksa ls Hkh lkeqfgd ySafxd geys dh lk{; i=koyh ij fo|eku ugha gS ,oa U;k;ky; }kjk mDr jkds"k lfgr vU; nks O;fDr;ksa dks nks'keqDr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa lkeqfgd ySafxd geys dh vo/kkj.kk gh gLrxr izdj.k esa lekIr gks x;h gSA blds vfrfjDr vfHk;qDr gtkjke mQZ ca"khyky ij /kkjk 447] 354] 323 Hkk-na-la- ds vfrfjDr /kkjk 7@8 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi Hkh fojfpr fd;s x;s gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ls /kkjk 509 Hkk-na-la- o /kkjk 11(i)@12 ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k

[2025:RJ-JD:19231] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2471/2025]

vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dh izFken`'V;k dksbZ lkexzh i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds dze esa gLrxr izdj.k esa U;k;ky; ds }kjk vkjksiksa esa ifjorZu fd;s tkus dh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ifjoknh i{k }kjk izLrqr mDr U;kf;d n`'VkUr Hkh rF;ksa dh fHkUurk dh otg ls gLrxr izdj.k esa fdafpr ek= Hkh ykxq ugha gksrk gSA vr% mDr foospu ds dze esa ifjoknh i{k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 216 na-iz-la- fnukad 17-02-2025 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA-----"

It is not in dispute before this Court the co-accused persons

namely Rakesh, Nemaram, Mahendra who were charged for the

offences under Sections 143, 447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8

POCSO Act have already been acquitted by the competent criminal

Court after conducting regular trial against them vide order dated

23.10.2024. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration

the material available before it vide order dated 16.01.2025,

framed charges against Hajjaram (respondent No.2) for the

offences under Sections 447, 354, 323 IPC and Section 7/8 of

POCSO Act. The application filed by the petitioner- complainant

under Section 216 Cr.P.C. came to be rejected by the learned trial

Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the sides and

perusing the material available on record by concluding that the

ingredients for offences under Section 509 and Sections 11(i)/12

of POCSO Act were not made out in the present case. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of "P. Karikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh"