1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R SURESH @ BILLU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.876/2010 Under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.44/2010. .... DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 15th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Dr.Sachin Acharya for the petitioner. Ms.Chandra Lekha, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The petitioner Suresh @ Billu, s/o Mangi Lal , r/o Village Firod , Police Station, Mundawa District, Nagaur has filed this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.44/2010. 2 The brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2010, complainant Sunder Devi submitted a FIR stating that on 04.04.2010 at about 11.45AM she was going from her in-law's house at Rajod to her parents' house at Bodind- Burd and was waiting for the bus at Gogaji-ki- Khejhi. It was stated that while she was waiting for the bus a jeep came from village Jayal which stopped near her. Two persons, Om Prakash and Gajendra, came out of the jeep and forcibly put her in the jeep, which was being driven by some other person. First she was taken to a place named Tarnau and thereafter, to some other place and she was subjected to rape by Om Prakash and Gajendra, while the jeep was being driven towards Meharwas. It was stated that the driver of the jeep also tried to outrage her modesty. When the jeep reached near the place 'Gott Manglod Mataji' the complainant raised hue and cry, as a result of which few persons came and stopped the vehicle and rescued her. In the meantime, her family members came and the report was lodged. Challan was filed against the petitioner and two other accused persons, namely, Om Prakash and Gajendra for the offences under sections 3 366, 368, 342, 354, 376(2) (g) and 120B IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, proceeded to frame the charge against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences vide order dated 30.09.2010. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur,dated 30.09.2010, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no evidence on record regarding commission of offence of gang-rape, against the petitioner Suresh @ Billu and the learned trial court committed illegality in ordering to frame the charge against the petitioner under section 376 (2) and 120B IPC. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused petitioner has been charged for offence under section 376 (2)(g) and for this offence it is not necessary for the accused to commit actual rape because as per explanation (1) to section 376(2) IPC, where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of 4 persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape, within the meaning of this sub- section. The first information report bears this fact that petitioner was driving the jeep at the relevant time and as per First Information Report, the driver of the jeep assaulted and used criminal force to the prosecutrix with an intention to outrage her modesty and at the relevant time, he was also present at the scene of the occurrence. Therefore, the order of the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the First Information Report, as also the report produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The First Information Report bears the fact that the petitioner Suresh @ Billu was also there in the jeep and at the time of the commission of offence he was also there. In view of this fact, and taking into 5 consideration the explanation (I) of section 376(2) IPC, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned trial court in ordering to frame a charge against the present petitioner under section 376 (2)(g) and 120B IPC. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george