Km. Geeta & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

Since both these revisions have been preferred by the revisionists challenging the common order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the Court below, hence these are disposed of by this common judgment.

The revisionists have challenged the common order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ IInd Fast Track Court, Rudrapur, District-Udham Singh Nagar on the application 27Kha moved by the prosecution in Sessions Trial No.314 of 2010, whereby revisionist Km. Geeta has been summoned u/s 363/366 IPC, whereas the revisionist Amit Kumar @ Monu has been summoned to face trial under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

Facts of the sessions trial are that the complainant Ms. Nandini Rawat lodged an FIR on 29.8.2010 at Kotwali Rudrapur with the allegations that on 4.5.2010, her daughter Santosh Rawat, aged about 16 years, was missing from her house. Before 4 days, she reached home in the state of unconsciousness. After recovering the health, she disclosed that on 4.5.2010, accused Sonu Kannojia and Monu Kannojia had taken her away forcefully and had kept her at Varanasi, Faizabad and various other places, where the accused committed rape on her.

After investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 363, 364 and 376 IPC was filed against the accused Sumit Kumar @ Sonu. After committal of case, the Court took cognizance and framed the charge against the said accused. Thereafter, the prosecution produced the prosecutrix PW2. After hearing the evidence, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Paper No.27Kha) for summoning the accused Monu and Geeta.

After hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge summoned the revisionists, as above, by the impugned order. Hence these revisions have been preferred challenging the order of the Court below.

I have heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned A.G.A. alongwith Mr.Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material produced before me.

In the F.I.R. dated 29.08.2010, names of two accused, Sonu and Monu are especially mentioned and it is mentioned that both the accused had committed rape with the victim/prosecutrix.

The prosecutrix produced as PW-2 and she categorically submitted in her statement that on 4.05.2010 at 4 p.m. when she was going to market from her home Paharganj, accused Sumeet, his brother Monu and his sister Geeta met her. Geeta insisted her to accompany them and then Geeta offered prasad to her. After taking the prasad, she became unconscious. Thereafter, she was forced to sit in a car where all the accused were present. Geeta gave her an injection and thereafter, they took her to Faizabad, Varanasi, Shimla and other places where they committed rape on her.

From the evidence produced by the prosecution, I am also of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the accused Km. Geeta under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and against Monu under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

On the basis of these evidences, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly summoned the revisionist Monu under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and revisionist Geeta under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. There is no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

For the aforesaid reasons, both these revisions, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed, by affirming the summoning order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur. Interim orders dated 20.10.2011 and 05.12.2011 passed by this Court are hereby vacated.

Since, the trial of the revisionists is lying pending pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the year 2011, the Trial Court is directed to decide the case at the earliest, preferably within nine months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.