Devki Soni vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 25-10-2010, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhalawar has issued process against the Petitioner for the offences u/s 376 read with 120B IPC, while invoking the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has not only relied upon the testimony of prosecutrix, but has also relied upon the testimony of Kaushalya Bai (PW.3) and Babli Soni (PW.7). However, the learned Judge has ignored this fact that Kaushalya Bai is related to the prosecutrix. Thus, she is an interested witness. Learned Judge has also overlooked the fact that Shanti Bai, a colleague of the prosecutrix, has turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in issuing the process, u/s 319 Cr.P.C., against the Petitioner.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Naturally the star witness, in a case u/s 376 IPC, is the prosecutrix herself. The prosecutrix (PW.3) has clearly stated in her testimony that the present Petitioner was working in the same Aanganbari, where she was working. The husband of the Petitioner used to come to the Aanganbari, where men have no business to come. The husband of the Petitioner used to physically harass the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix complained to the Petitioner about the conduct of her husband, the Petitioner told that incase she wants to work, she would have to bear all the acts of her husband. It is further stated that the Petitioner used to ask the prosecutrix to come to her house for picking up the keys of Aanganbari. Whenever, the prosecutrix went to pick up keys of Aanganbari, Devi Lal used to physically misbehave with her. When the prosecutrix complained about the conduct of Devi Lal, the Petitioner told her that in case she wants to work in Aanganbari, she will have to bear all such acts. It is further alleged that even when she was ravished by Devi Lal, the Petitioner used to sit outside the room.

In case the testimony of the prosecutrix is read as a whole, it is sufficient to make out a case against the present Petitioner u/s 376 read with 120B IPC. Merely because, other witnesses such as Kaushalya Bai, happen to be related to the prosecutrix, her testimony cannot be thrown out, only on the ground that she may be an interested witness. For the purpose of exercising the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C., learned Judge is concerned to see whether a prima facie case is make out or not. The testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

The instant revision petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.