JUDGMENT
Jasraj Chopra, J.
1. This Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the revisional order of the learned session judge, churu dated 9-4-1987 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioners against whom cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu for the offences under Sections 376/34 and 457, IPC.
2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that Mst. Sita wife of Ram Chandra was sleeping in her house on the night intervening between 13th and 14th June 1984 her husband was busy with ploughing the fields of others with the help of a tractor in some other villages. It is alleged that accused-petitioners prabhu Ram, Rawant Ram and Kheta Ram first enjoyed themselves with the bottle of wine in the house of one Poorna Ram and there after they scaled the thorn fencing of complainant’s house and committed rape with mst. Sita immediately raised hue and cry where upon, her uncle-in-law Sunder Ram reached the place of the occurrence. On seeing him, the accused-persons ran away from the place of the occurrence Sunder Ram then called one Loona Ram, who identified the foot-prints of these three accused-persons. The complainant mentioned the subject to number of persons in the village. Her brother-in-law (Dewar) Banshi was sent to call her husband who actually came on 17-7-1984 and, therefore, the report of the incident was lodged on 18-7-1984. A number of persons were examined by the Investigating Officer and a re-investigation was made and then Final Report, was submitted by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the re-investigation made by the Senior Officer. The learned Magistrate, how ever, disagreed with the FR. He rejected it and took cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the aforesaid offences. A revision was preferred and which was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this petition.
3. I have heard Mr. R.N. Bishnoi and D.S. Rathore, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners and Mrs. Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.
4. Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has submitted that accused-petitioners are respected citizens and they have wrongly been implicated in the case on account of political enmity. I have gone through the record of the case. In all the statements that have been recorded in the initial investigation, the complainant and the eye witness Sunder Ram as also all other witnesses have categorically stated that accused petitioners entered into the house of Ramchandra and committed rape with his wife. This fact was immediately mentioned by the lady to the villagers and Sunder Ram has seen the accused-persons running away from the place of the occurrence. How ever, it appears that some re-investigation was conducted and in that re-investigation certain persons who were not cited as witnesses were examined and on the basis of those statements, certain conclusions were drawn, and it was held that no prima facie case is made out. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.P. Sharma v. V.K. Jain 1986 SC 837 have held that if the allegations made by the prosecution and her witnesses are taken to be true and make out a prima facie case for trial then such an order cannot be quashed in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. As observed earlier, the prosecutrix and her witnesses have categorically stated in the FIR as also in the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the rape has been committed with Mst. Sita. The medical examination also showed certain injuries on her person and. therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence of these witnesses if taken on their face value do not make out a prima facie case for trial. Under these circumstances, I do not find it a case where extra ordinary powers of this Court can be exercised under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash such an order which is based on sound reasoning and is supported by evidence.
6. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is here by dismissed.