AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Atul Kumar Jain, J
In this criminal revision petition, final arguments have been heard by me at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.
In Sessions Case No.4/2013 on 11.1.2013, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Jodhpur has framed the charges under Sections 376, 379 and 323 IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act of 1989”).
I have heard both the parties. I have perused the statement of the prosecutrix Pappu Devi recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. I have also perused her statement which was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Some of the lines of her statement are as follows:-
“शैतान राम मेरे घर पर ही रहता रात को मेरे पास सोता मेरी सहमति से सम्भोग करता था शैतान राम व मेरा सहवास से दो बच्चे पैदा हुए जो जीवित है मेरी पास रहते है जिनका नाम स्वरुप उम्र ३ साल जगदीश उम्र २ साल है करीब 5 -6 साल तक मै व शैतान राम दोनों पति पत्नी के रूप में रहे शैतान राम शादी शुदा नहीं था व मुझे हमेशा कहता की मै पूरी जिंदगी भर पत्नी के रूप में रखूंगा ................. I
................. और शैतान राम ने मेरे से अवैध सम्बन्ध बना दिये मै व शैतान राम पति पत्नी की तरह रहने लगे मेरा पति मुझे छोड़ क्र चला गया था शैतान राम व मेरे सहवास से दो बच्चे हुए जो जीवित है जो मेरे पास रहते है शैतान राम ने मुझसे शादी नहीं की करीब 5-6 साल तक हम पति पत्नी के तरह रहे ...........शैतान राम मुझसे शादी का झांसा देकर मेरे साथ पति पत्नी की तरह रहा व सहवास किया”I
Looking to te above statements, it is crystal clear that charge under Section 376 IPC or under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not at all made out against accused Shaitana Ram and he has been wrongly charged under those sections by the learned lower court. So he deserves discharge from the chargeS of Sections 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
So far as other charges are concerned, they are under Sections 379 and 323 IPC. The accused was having sexual relation with the prosecutrix by putting her in the false impression that he should marry her in future. For this purpose, charge under Section 420 IPC may also be framed by the lower court if it thinks proper after hearing both the parties. The charges under Sections 379 and 323, IPC are kept untouched at this stage.
The revision petition of accused Shaitana Ram is disposed of as indicated above. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.