Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 813 of 2022
Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.12, Sultanpur in Special Sessions Trial No.665 of 2021 "State vs. Sunil", arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi.
Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report came to be lodged bearing Case Crime No.364 of 2020 on 21.10.2020 at 20:20 Hrs by the first informant, mother of the victim under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. stating therein that the victim, her daughter was enticed away by the revisionist on 09.10.2020. She tried to trace whereabouts of her daughter. However, having failed, she lodged a case against the revisionist.
From a perusal of the record, it transpires that during investigation, after recovery of the victim and after her statements were recorded under Sections 161 & 164 I.P.C., Section 376 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act came to be added.
Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the revisionist under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an application bearing no.19Kha/1 claiming his discharge, which has been rejected vide order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.12, Sultanpur. Hence this revision.
The foremost contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is innocent against whom a false case came to be registered at the behest of the first informant, mother of victim. He has further submitted that in fact while rejecting the application for discharge vide impugned order dated 05.05.2022, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that even if the prosecution case is taken to be true on the face of it, no offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act is made out against the revisionist.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the revisionist is named in the first information report against whom F.I.R. came to be lodged initially under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. After recovery of victim and after her statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., charge sheet ultimately came to be filed against the revisionist under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. He, thus, submits that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has rightly rejected the application for discharge.
Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that learned trial Court, while rejecting the discharge application has observed that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is trite that at this stage any roving enquiry as to innocence or guilt of the accused is not required.
Having found that the victim has supported the prosecution case, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application bearing no.19kha/1 for discharge. There is no illegality or irregularity in the aforesaid impugned order. Even learned counsel for the revisionist failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the aforesaid impugned order.
Thus, having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fault with the impugned order can be found.
In view of aforesaid, the instant criminal revision lacks merit which deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2022/Mahesh
