Revision petition challenging acceptance of negative final report by trial court in a POCSO and rape case dismissed as the reasons given by the trial court were sound and no ground for interference existed.
The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's acceptance of the negative final report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1660 / 2016
Ruksana, W/o Shri Mumta, B/c Musalman, R/o Gangapura, Police Station Ramgarh Sethan, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Gupta
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment
01/02/2018
Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 06.08.2016, whereby negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency was accepted by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she had levelled allegations of attempt of rape against the accused.
In the present case, FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner against the accused under Section 376(D)/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. After thorough investigation of the case, negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency. Petitioner preferred a protest petition. Trial court vide
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-1660/2016]
impugned order accepted the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency and dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner. It has been noticed by the trial Court that there was a dispute pending between the parties with regard to partition of land and various cases were pending between the parties. Both the parties belonged to one family. Accused in relation were brother and nephew. Petitioner is the wife of the brother of the accused. Both the parties are residing in the neighbourhood.
The reasons given by the trial Court, while accepting the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency, are sound reasons. Moreover, it was the case of the petitioner that one of the accused had bitten the cheek of her daughter, but there is no medical evidence, in this regard in support of the said plea.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Sudha/92
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is ground for interference under revisional jurisdiction when the trial court accepts a negative final report due to pending dispute and lack of medical evidence.
Whether the allegations of attempted rape and biting the cheek require affirmation given the absence of medical evidence.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Ruksana, W/o Shri Mumta
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
