Allahabad High Court
Deepu vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 14 March, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1003 of 2019
Revisionist :- Deepu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Agrawal,Santosh Kumar Pandey,Shujauddin
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Asiyam Nasir and Shama, learned counsel jointly filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2, is taken on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. (Offence against Women) Rampur, District Rampur in S.T. No. 17 of 2017 (State Vs. Veer Singh and others) being as Case Crime No. 190C of 2016, under section 294, 323, 376-D, 504 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Rampur pending before Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. (Offence against Women) Rampur, District Rampur.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged on the basis of an application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against revisionist and co-accused Veer Singh and Prem Singh. During investigation the involvement of revisionist was found false. No charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist. After statement of victim (P.W. 1) the O.P. No. 2 has moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 6.7.2018. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 has moved again an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. on 5.12.2018 which was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 18.1.2019 and the revisionist has been summoned to face the trial under the aforementioned sections. In fact, wife of co-accused Veer Singh has lodged an FIR against the husband of O.P. No. 2 and 3 others under section 376D, 506 IPC and 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act. In counter blast the O.P. No. 2 has lodged this FIR making false allegation of rape against the revisionist and other co-accused. It has further been submitted that in the year 2015 the O.P. 2 has also lodged an FIR against the revisionist and co-accused making false allegation of rape. In that case final report was submitted by the I.O. In fact, the revisionist has not committed the alleged offence. There was no sufficient evidence on record to summon the revisionist. The statement of victim is not believable and reliable.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. argued that the revisionist is named in the FIR. The victim in FIR as well as in her statements recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against the revisionist and other co-accused. During trial the statement of victim has been recorded as P.W. 1 in which she has also made allegation of rape against the revisionist and two other co-accused. P.W. 2 Naththoo Singh and P.W. 3 Rajendra Singh are the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. In their statements the above witnesses have clearly stated that revisionist and two other co-accused have committed rape upon the victim. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the revisionist to face the trial in the aforementioned sections. It has further been submitted that the first application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the victim after recording her statement as P.W. 1. At that time the statements of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have not been recorded due to which the first application of O.P. No. 2 under section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The second application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved after recording the statements of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has passed the impugned order. There is allegation of rape against the revisionist. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
A perusal of the record shows that the revisionist is named in the FIR. The victim in FIR as well as in her statements recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against the revisionist and two other co-accused. During trial the statement of victim has been recorded as P.W. 1 in which she has also made allegation of rape against the revisionist. P.W. 2 Naththoo Singh and P.W. 3 Rajendra Singh are said to be eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. They have also supported the prosecution version and have stated that the revisionist has committed rape upon the victim. The learned trial court has passed the impugned summoning order after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case. The summoning order is based upon the statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 18.1.2019, therefore, the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.3.2019
Masarrat
