Smt. Sumitra Jangid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

judfile

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1466/2015
(Smt. Sumitra Jangid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1466/2015
(Smt. Sumitra Jangid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan)
Date of Order : 10th April, 2015
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI
Mr.Ankush Sharma, for the petitioner/s.
Mr.Jitendra Shrimali, Public Prosecutor – for the State.
By the Court:
By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to
the order dated 16th March, 2015 framing charges for the
offfence under Sections 5, 6 & 23 of Pre-conception and Prenatal
Diagnostic Techniques Act (for short “PCPNDT Act”). A
challenge to the said order by a revision petition also failed, as the
revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 12th March, 2015.
Learned counsel submits that case was initiated on a
complaint, thus pre-charge evidence was recorded. The lady turned
hostile, thus no case remained as other three witnesses were not
having independent knowledge but was in reference to what was
informed by the lady. In view of above, the petitioners should have
been discharged by applying Section 245 of Cr.P.C. Learned court
below failed to consider the aforesaid while framing charges.
It is also stated that no diagnose was made otherwise,
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1466/2015
(Smt. Sumitra Jangid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan)
2
as per alleged information for birth of boy, girl would not have
taken birth. It is a fact on record that lady concerned, had given
birth to a girl. In the background aforesaid, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed because when the main witness did not
support the prosecution case in pre-charge evidence, conviction
would be impossible.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
I have considered the submissions and perused the
record.
A case was registered on a complaint under Section 28
of PCPNDT Act. The pre-charge evidence was recorded thereupon.
The lady turned hostile, however, three witnesses made
statements supporting the prosecution case, though according to
the petitioner/s, it was demolished in the cross examination.
The question is as to whether the charges can be
framed even if the star witnesses have turned hostile. The
argument aforesaid was considered by the Revisional Court in
detail.
To appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court has also gone through the statements of the
witnesses, so as other material, apart from the impugned orders.
Before answering the question raised herein, it would
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1466/2015
(Smt. Sumitra Jangid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan)
3
be necessary to indicate that at the stage of hearing of case for
framing of charges, only prima facie case is to be seen and not
that the evidence should be of such a nature, which may lead to
conviction. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the case has to
be examined. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, they
have supported the prosecution case. The reference of cross
examination has been given where certain questions were raised
with their answer. I do not find that statements were demolished
in the cross examination so as to discharge the accused.
Looking to the aforesaid and the stage, I do find that
any illegality has been committed by the Court below while framing
charges. It is also to be noted that after framing charges, the
revision petition was preferred and now a petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but becomes a second revision petition and
as per the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is not
maintainable but in few cases, it is held maintainable where gross
abuse of process is shown. The case of the aforesaid nature is not
made out.
In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any
illegality in the impugned orders, hence, this criminal misc. petition
is dismissed. This disposes of the stay application as well.
However, it is made clear that any observation made in
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1466/2015
(Smt. Sumitra Jangid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan)
4
this judgment would not affect or prejudice the trial.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.23
Preeti, P.A.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been
incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preeti Asopa
P.A.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s