Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Usuf Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan

Usuf Ali vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 16, 1987
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765262

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 2 of 1983
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Sections 376/511 & 456 and Criminal Procedure Code--Framing of charge--Accused entering house of prosecutrix at dead of night--Catching hold of breast of prosecutrix and opening lace of her Salwar--Suspicion founded on strong suspicion--Held, sessions court committed no illegality in framing charge ...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Usuf Ali

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1987(1)WLN204

Excerpt

penal code - sections 376/511 & 456 and criminal procedure code--framing of charge--accused entering house of prosecutrix at dead of night--catching hold of breast of prosecutrix and opening lace of her salwar--suspicion founded on strong suspicion--held, sessions court committed no illegality in framing charge under sectionection 376/511 and 456.;revision dismissed - - 3. it is well settled that the standard of test, proof and judgment, which are to be applied finally before finding the accused petitioner guilty or otherwise are not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charge. at that stage even a very strong suspicion founded upon material leads the trial court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it may justify the framing of the charge on such strong suspicion......2, kota, only showed that the accused petitioner used criminal force on mst. shamim, intending to out-rage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby out-rage her modesty and thus, charges under sections 456 and 354 i.p.c. only should have been framed against the accused petitioner and not charges under section 376 read with section 511 i.p.c.3. it is well settled that the standard of test, proof and judgment, which are to be applied finally before finding the accused petitioner guilty or otherwise are not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charge. at that stage even a very strong suspicion founded upon material leads the trial court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it may justify the framing of the charge on such strong suspicion. even if the scales of pan are even, the order which should be made would be of framing the charge alleged by the prosecution. it is clear that it was dead hour of night when all family members including mst. shamim were sleeping, the petitioner entered into the house of prosecutrix mst. shamim and caught hold of her breast and even opened the lace of her salwar which she was wearing; on these facts and circumstances of the case, the learned addl. sessions judge, no. 2, kota, did not commit any illegality in framing a charge under section 376 read with section 511 i.p.c. along with the charge under section 456 i.p.c.4. in the result, i see no force in this revision and the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Navin Chandra Sharma, J.

1. The material on record before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Kota, was that on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd July, 1982 at about 2.30 a.m. while Mst. Shamim, was sleeping in her house, the petitioner Yusuf Ali entered into the house of Mst. Shamim, caught hold the breast of Mst. Shamim and opened the lace of her Salwar, she was awakened and she raised the cry where-upon her brother and other members of family were also awakened and tried to catch hold the accused petitioner Yusuf Ali, but escaped. On this material appearing from the documents furnished by the police along with its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota framed the charges against the accused petitioner for the offences under Sections 456 and 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C.

2. The only controversy is that according to the accused-petitioner, the material before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota, only showed that the accused petitioner used criminal force on Mst. Shamim, intending to out-rage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby out-rage her modesty and thus, charges under Sections 456 and 354 I.P.C. only should have been framed against the accused petitioner and not charges under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C.

3. It is well settled that the standard of test, proof and judgment, which are to be applied finally before finding the accused petitioner guilty or otherwise are not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charge. At that stage even a very strong suspicion founded upon material leads the trial court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it may justify the framing of the charge on such strong suspicion. Even if the scales of pan are even, the order which should be made would be of framing the charge alleged by the prosecution. It is clear that it was dead hour of night when all family members including Mst. Shamim were sleeping, the petitioner entered into the house of prosecutrix Mst. Shamim and caught hold of her breast and even opened the lace of her Salwar which she was wearing; On these facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Kota, did not commit any illegality in framing a charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. along with the charge under Section 456 I.P.C.

4. In the result, I see no force in this revision and the same is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial