Sonu And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others






   
   

  !" #$%$!&'

(

   









    



 !"

' )*+( +
,

+
  #  $ %$

&'( ")*$ + !  

,-$ &.

/$.$(

 0( $-$$

,

+
 -( * 2

!$- +."

"

* 3 4&$$-$

$5$'

$'

$&$(  6 7+

&

9:

+ &5 *,!.$ <$5


 6   under Sections 323, 325, 452, 354-B, 376, 307, 166, 218 IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kundli, District Sonepat (Annexure P-6) $.5 /& $..

< ;

$ 5 &+, *.

"5

,,5 " 7=  3:

*&$5

7=  :  $ .$"

) 

!"

*"

"#




 

      

     

  !"  # $ % %& '$'&

  ( ' ) ) *      +

&   

 % &    -



(  

 '

%

  

   ' 

-

  * &

%   

 '. /0 



     +

&

 

   +

&    *  ' 

  ' +   *

( (%



%

' (-   &> $ *- ?

$) $)? &$+( & +."

$/$- - +$&

! ! & !.

*'

&$/ > &$) +)

 

"@ ==== A2A22====1 6

$

! /$- $++"$)

! &.$/$(  

,,

 .*( $(  *

!$

< +."

$ 5 -( /&*&

$' *" 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The true factual matrix is that initially, the present FIR was registered only under Sections 294, 323 and 452 IPC on allegations of assault. However, subsequently, after examination of PW-1/respondent No.2 wherein the allegations were materially improved, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, leading to framing of charges under Sections 323, 354-B, 376, 452, 511 IPC and Sections 4 & 18 POCSO Act. It is submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners, including the subsequent averment of attempted rape, unsupported by any cogent evidence on record. It is further submitted that a parallel complaint on the same occurrence was instituted only to aggravate the allegations and harass the petitioners, despite the settled principle that no person can be prosecuted twice for the same cause of action. &

!$-"

$../"

! *,!.$ $..

* ;

$.

&"   

.$"

$ *  .

)&,.- !!

<,



,$" .$"

*  .

+ &!  Learned State counsel, while placing reliance upon the status report, submits that the impugned orders have been passed after due application of mind and on consideration of the material available on record. Upon the application filed

 by the prosecutrix under Section 323 Cr.P.C., the case was rightly committed to the Court of Sessions/Special Court, where charges under the relevant provisions of IPC and the POCSO Act were validly framed against the petitioners. It is further submitted that sufficient prima facie material exists against the accused, and thus, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charges in accordance with law. Learned State counsel further contends that the issues raised by the petitioners pertain to appreciation of evidence and credibility of witnesses, which can only be adjudicated during trial. Learned State counsel further submits that even the trial in the present case is at the fag end, since the prosecution evidence already stands concluded, and the case is fixed for defence evidence.  $"

.$"

*  .

&

" !

"*$.

*"

/& & $<.

$* C >

."

.$/

 )'

=$"$-  "*

,$   >

.- =*!$.

** $* /&  )  

*$ $<. &"

$5$ $**

! (  * 5 *,$.

/ ."

$,  5

, *$$5

*( $

& ."

&" ?<.

!, 



     &."

"# 23  4*   %         &     %     % 

 &%   +  5 6 6-6  

7     8  7   

  

 

 

   9

  %    *  :

        9  &   

     ;



 D

 3 E&  !*

."

.$/ 5$"5 &5 *,$.

5$+ .

+* *$ $.

 ,$" *$ .$"

"/ 9<.

!, "5, !$





  !

"#  $ %  #   & ' 

' (


$ )( *   + ) .)$ ! &+ $"

&

#
! % & 

'  *

'

 &

'  7  

'

' *(  &% * -6   +  5 6 6< =>+& %    & '

   



       

&

7 '?

=>+&%%    & '

 %       

*

 

    @ 

*



       &      %&   

&   

 

  

     =>  +&     %          &  '  

  '&   :

&

A

:     

@ '  '&   :

&

?

=*>+& % &  % % 

&   

%  *  @ ?



%  &   *@ 



-6 &  7  



B&   

&% *   +  5 6 6+ 

&%   @ 

% *&    % % %%      =  % &  

   >& '% 



  % 

  *  

C=+<

@*

D

*$

E , & =6 

.&& FG5 !#>H1  )5 $ &$"(

< !"

 prosecution evidence in the instant case already stands concluded and the

) matter is presently fixed for defence evidence before the learned trial Court, indicating that the trial is at an advanced stage and nearing conclusion. Be that as it may, it is noted that the FIR itself discloses the existence of 

!*+* $..5$

$5$ ! /&*& $ !,$ +$* *<$"

,$$.

*" 

$- =$"$- !/

&

$ =* /& &

 ,$$.

!*"

$5$ !7 :

) + $..5$

$  

$**!"

 ( /&*&



 !  The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners regarding alleged contradictions, improvements in the version of the prosecutrix, absence of specific injuries in the medical evidence and falsity of allegations are all matters relating to appreciation of evidence and determination of credibility of witnesses.

2  **"5.-(

! * .$) ** !* ,$$.

*"( &

! )'5

!/

"

* 3

 /$$"

 22

**"5.-( !

$"

" ,

" 2

"5 , *..$

$!!.*$7 :( + $-( $.



$"

" ! + ,

+
      .

-

 Ritika /0 0 1%2 3$&451 %!& 6 '

 %5!

/0 0 11 2!1 '

 %5!