Court frames charges in Akhnoor Sex Scandal

Spread the love

Presiding Officer Kishore Kumar of Fast Track Court today framed charges in much publicized Akhnoor Sex Scandal u/s 376 against accused persons.
According to the police case is that on 02.12.2015 complainant Surinder Kumar filed a written report in the police station, Akhnoor alleging that his daughter name with held (aged 15 years), is minor and was studying in 10th class who is missing from his house since 12.011.2015. He had enquired from all of his relatives but could not be traced and because of this reason there is a delay in lodging the report with the police, but later on he came to know that accused Abhi alias Gulshan Kumar of Pathankot, who used to visit the school of her daughter and he also called her twice on her cell phone, had kidnapped her and has prayed for taking action against the accused.
On this report, FIR NO. 221/2015 for offence under section 363 RPC was registered and investigation of the case was entrusted to ASI Kuldeep Singh. IO went to Pathankot alongwith complainant and recovered the prosecutrix from the possession of accused Gulshan Kumar alias Abhi from Tangu Chowk. He has got the prosecutrix medically examined from SDH Akhnoor and also got recorded her statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C. and on the basis of statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. also added offence under section 376 RPC.
Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Kishore Kumar after hearing battery of lawyers for the accused side whereas APP Vijay Kumar Sharma for the State, observed that the question relating to framing of an opinion at the time of framing the charge is different from a case of recording of reasons on the basis of which an order of discharge is passed, it is imperative to record the reasons. But for framing of charge the court is required to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. In case of discharge of the accused the use of the expressions “reasons” has been inserted in Sections 227, 239 and 245 Cr.P.C.
At the stage of framing of a charge the expression used is opinion. The reason is obvious if the reasons are recorded in case of framing of charge, there is likelihood of prejudicing the case of the accused put on trial. The judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused. But if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge. But when the question of jurisdiction is raised and the trial court is required to adjudicate that issue, it cannot be said that reasons are not to be recorded.
In such a case reasons relate to question of jurisdiction and not necessarily to the issue relating to framing of charge. In such a case reasons dealing with a plea relating to jurisdiction have to be recorded” and in the present case, on the basis of the material on record prima facie in shape of the facts of the case as emerging in the documents collected and statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency including the CDRs, (Call Detail Records) there is sufficient material on record for framing charge against the accused persons. JNF

Recommended For You

About the Author: Editorjknews

Facebook