IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT BABULAL @ JAGDISH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1433 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated November 3, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008 by which charges were framed against accused Mahaveer and petitioner Babulal under sections 366/120 B and 376/ 120 B IPC, against accused Prakash under sections 366, 376 (2)(g), and against accused Mohan and Harsayay under sections 366/120 B, 376 (2)(g) IPC. Date of Order : January 15, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the respondent. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner Babulal @ Jaghdish, against the order dated November 3,2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008 by which charges were framed against accused Mahaveer and petitioner Babulal under sections 366/120 B and 376/ 120 B IPC, against accused Prakash under sections 366, 376 (2)(g), and against accused Mohan and Harsayay under sections 366/120 B, 376 (2)(g) IPC. Against the order of charge only petitioner Babulal @ Jagdish filed the instant revision petition. 2. Brief facts of the case in short are that on April 10, 2008 at 11.35 a.m. Complainant Jagdish Prasad lodged a written report at Police Station Thoi District Sikar against one co-accused Prakash. The police registered case bearing FIR No. 40 of 2008 for offence under sections 363 and 366 IPC. During investigation the poloice added section 376 IPC. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons including the petitioner for offence under sections 363, 366, 376/120 B IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Srimadhopur. ACJM took cognizance of offence and offences being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions committed the case to the Court of Addl. District & Sesions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar Camp Srimadhopur for trial. 3. On November 3, 2008 the trial court after hearing arguments, framed charge against accused Mahaveer and petitioner Babulal under sections 366/120 B and 376/ 120 B IPC, against accused Prakash under sections 366, 376 (2)(g), and against accused Mohan and Harsayay under sections 366/120 B, 376 (2)(g) IPC. Hence this revision petition by petitioner Babulal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court while framing charge has not considered properly the statements recorded by the Police under section 161 Cr.P.C. and by the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. In these statements the petitioner has got no role. The petitioner is a friend of one of the accused. He has been falsely implicated by the police only on the ground that the main accused is related to him. He has further contended that the petitioner is a witness of the prosecution while the police has implicated him as accused as he has put his signature on the site plan as per the directions of the investigating officer. Hence charge framed against the petitioner be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anoop Dhand and Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of the petitioner and contended that this is a heinous offence where prosecutrix was raped by number of accused persons and the petitioner is one of the co-accused, who has conspired in this matter. They further contended that the manner in which Sumitra was raped by the co-accused persons are shameful for the society. 7. They have further drawn the attention of this court on the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post mortem report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 8. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. I direct the trial court to expedite this matter as early as possible. Since the main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/