Allahabad High Court
Adil And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 24 February, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 12.1.2021
Delivered on 24.2.2021.
Court No. 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 302 of 2019
Revisionist :- Adil And 2 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shahabuddin
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Agarval,.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge POCSO Act Bulandshahar passed in Special Criminal Case No. 1915 of 2018 arising out of case crime no. 392 of 2017 under Sections 342, 506, 376 I.P.C. and 4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Jahangirabad, District- Bulandshahar whereby allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists.
2. Brief facts of this case are as follows-:-..
Brief facts of the case is that initially F.I.R. has been lodged against the revisionists as case crime no. 392 of 2017 under Sections 363 342, 506, 376/511 I.P.C. and 8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Jahangirabad, District- Bulandshahar with allegation that the Muskan, minor daughter of informant, Shakeel Ahmad, who is aged about 15 years was not found in the house on 5.10.2017 despite search. At about 4:00 p.m. Irshad and Hashim informed him that they saw the victim, Muskan with revisionist, Adil, Danish and brother of the revisionist, Faisal and father of the revisionist nos. 1 and 2 namely, Raheesuddin and they kidnapped her with ulterior motive. They took away the victim in car from Jahangirabad to Sikandarabad and after that the revisionists returned back to their home.
3. Next day revisionist no. 3, Raheesuddin left the victim near her house and the victim, Muskan returned to her house and after return she narrated the entire version then F.I.R. has been lodged against the revisionist and co-accused .
4. Statement of the informant, Shakeel Ahmad was recorded on 6th October, 2017 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he repeated the entire version of the F.I.R. and on 10th October, 2017 the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she narrated the entire version of the F.I.R. and also narrated implication of the revisionists and she further submitted that all the revisionists and co-accused, Faisal took away her by car from Jahangirabad to Sikandarabad and left her in a room and revisionists returned back from the spot. Statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she reiterated the earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation after collecting the entire evidence Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the co-accused, Faisal and exonerated all the revisionists for the charges levelled against them.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the statement of the Shakeel, first informant/father of the victim was also recorded before the trial court on 1.9.2018 and statement of the victim was also recorded on the same day i.e. on 1.9.2018. On the basis of the statement of P.W.-1, Shakeel and P.W.-2, Muskan, opposite party filed an application paper no. 28-B under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and learned court below summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Sections 342, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 4 of the POCSO Act.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2018 this revision has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Muskan was major at the time of incident and she was in love relation with Faisal and on account of which she left her house with her sweet and free will. Since the victim is consenting party and revisionists have no concern with the allegation mentioned in the prosecution story but they have been victimized only for the reason that they are closely related with the co-accused, Faisal. Therefore, no offence is made out against the revisionists and order of the trial court was against the weight of the evidence and thus, learned counsel for the revisionists prayed for quashing of the order of the learned trial court passed under Section 319 Cr.p.C.
8. Sri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite side and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayers made by the learned counsel for the revisionists and submitted that the revisionists actively participated in the offence and at the time of incident the victim was minor and there is clear cut allegations against the revisionists to elope minor girl, Muskan, daughter of the first informant, Shakeel Ahmad. The revisionists are named in the F.I.R. and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their statements have corroborated the version of the F.I.R. Thus, the prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. There is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order.
9. Provisions of the Section 319 Cr.P.C. is quoted below:-
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
"1. Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
2. Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
3. Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
4. Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub- Section (1) then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
10. It is evident from the above referred evidence of the prosecution that all the above prosecution witnesses have given evidence regarding complicity of revisionists in the alleged crime with necessary details. It is not desirable to enter into detailed discussions and analysis of the prosecution evidence available against the revisionists and recorded findings on merits of those. There is sufficient evidence to proceed further, against the revisionists. It is also crystal clear from the perusal of the above facts and circumstances of the present case and provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. that the trial could not be conducted without arraigning the revisionists as accused in the present case.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is crystal clear that the order passed by the trial court is based on the proper appraisal of the evidence available on record and no interference is required by this Court. Therefore, this revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and therefore, prayer for setting aside the proceedings of the aforesaid case and order is refused.
12. With the aforesaid observation/directions, the revision is dismissed.
13. Interim order, if any, is vacated.
Order Date:- 24.2.2021
Anuj Singh
