CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 02 GAU CK 0047

Kirpal Singh vs State of Assam and Another

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 17 February 2003 · Citation: (2003) CriLJ 3846 : (2003) 2 GLR 426

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.P. Naolekar, C.J · Ranjan Gogoi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.A. No. 316 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

The basic facts, as mentioned in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, are that on 6.3.1995, one Sri Marshal Tapna filed an FIR stating therein that her minor girl Smt. Puspa Tapna, aged about 15 to 16 years, was kidnapped by one A.M. Bahadur. During the course of investigation, the girl was recovered and was examined by the doctor. Her statement u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. The police thereafter submitted charge sheet against A. M. Bahadur Biswa Karma u/s 366 of the Indian Penal Code and against the appellant Sri Kirpal Singh, showing him as absconder u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The petitioner-appellant has approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the framing of charge u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner-appellant. The statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh clearly indicates the involvement of the petitioner-appellant in the commission of the offence. We need not elaborate the statement made by the girl as it may hamper the appellant''s defence in the trial pending before the Court below. When there is a statement made by the victim recorded by the Court u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is sufficient material on record to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner-appellant.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that previously there was a charge sheet filed only against one A.M. Bahadur and not against the accused-appellant. The statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant does not born out of record. The facts mentioned by the learned Single Judge clearly show that the charge sheet against the appellant was filed along with Bahadur-Biswa Karma. The only thing was that he was shown as absconder.

4.

Under the circumstances, we find no good or sufficient reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeal dismissed.