Allahabad High Court
Bashir vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101603
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 686 of 2023
Revisionist :- Bashir
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01.Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
02. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No.406 of 2021, case crime no.436 of 2017, under Sections 376 (1), 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Tarya Sujan, District Kushi Nagar whereby discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.
03. Relevant facts are as below:-
Respondent no.2,Smt. Amina Khatoon lodged an F.I.R. against the present revisionist alleging that he committed rape on her on 25.10.2016 at about 2.00 PM. afternoon. When she raised alarm, certain witnesses came and rescued her. After investigation chargesheet has been submitted against the accused revisionist. During course of hearing the accused moved an application for his discharge. Same was considered by learned trial court and it came to be dismissed by order dated 20.07.2022. Now the present revisionist is before this Court in criminal revision.
04. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that F.I.R. has been lodged imputing false allegations against him. During course of the investigation the concerned C.O. enquired into the matter the C.O. found that the dispute essentially related to sale/purchase of land and thereafter the victim, first informant lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 376 (1), 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It is argued that from the aforesaid report it is quite clear that there is no truth in the allegations and that F.I.R. is a motivated step. My attention has further been drawn to medical report. It is argued that medical report does not corroborate the allegations. Further it is contended that before lodging of the F.I.R. matter was settled between two sides and a Sulahanama was put into writing, copy whereof is part of record. In nutshell it is vehemently argued that entire story is false and fabricated and case against him has no legs to stand and, therefore, the court ought to have discharged him.
05. I went through the impugned order and other material on record. The learned trial court noticed the fact that the victim has given a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. imputing allegation of intruding in her house and committing rape on her and also intimidating and threatening her of dire consequences. Likewise learned trial court noticed the statement given by two witnesses Mainuddin and Kalmi Khatoon who supported the prosecution case. The learned trial court referred to judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors A.I.R 1977 SCC 1489, State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (51) ACC 209, State Anti Corruption Bureau Hyderabad vs. Surprakashan 1999 SCC (Criminal) 373, and judgment of this Court in the cases of Sachin Saxena alias lucky vs. State of U.P. 2008 (62) ACC 454 and Liyakat vs. State of U.P. 2008 ACC 453. This is settled position of law that at the level of framing of charge a deep and penetrating evaluation of evidence is not permissible. The merits or the credibility of prosecution case or reliability of evidence need not be assessed threadbare. The court can very well sift through the evidence just to find out whether prima facie offence is made out against the accused or not. Learned trial court has applied law correctly. I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or illegality so as to interference in the order.
06. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
Asha
