JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 2nd April, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, Dumka in S.T. Case No. 127 of 2021, arising out of Deoghar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2019 registered under Sections 376 , 511, 354-A, 354-B, 354-D, 379, 506, 509 and 34 of the I.P.C. whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has completely erred in dismissing the discharge application of the petitioner by passing a very cryptic order without appreciating the statement of all the independent witnesses, who had not corroborated the allegations made by the prosecutrix in the complaint. It is further submitted that the learned court below has completely ignored the statement of witness Ajay Kumar Singh and Dinesh Kumar Singh, who had stated that the petitioner never visited the hotel on the night of 20th April, 2019. The impugned order is based on perverse finding. It is also submitted that there was delay of 13 days in lodging the F.I.R. which is very crucial factor for disposing of the discharge application. The court below has given finding that the location of the informant and the petitioner was almost the same because as per cyber police report the location of the prosecutrix’s mobile phone on 20th April, 2019 at 8.30 to 9.10 p.m. was in Jyoti Nagar (Karnibag) and between 9.34 to 9.46 p.m. it was in Chandni Chowk (Sarraf Road) which is 5 to 6 kilometer away from the Hotel Shivshristi. As per prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place between 9.20 to 9.45 p.m. therefore, it was quite impossible that the alleged offence took place against the prosecutrix in Shivshristi Hotel. The court below has not considered the entire evidence to make out the case for proceeding against the accused. After occurrence, the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix was also not taken into consideration which was to enable the court below to reach on the proper conclusion in disposing the discharge application. The petitioner has been implicated in this case on account of political vendetta. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied upon following case law:

(i) Soma Chakravarty vs. State through C.B.I. (2007) 5 SCC 403

(ii) P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Another , (2010) 2 SCC 398

(iii) Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another , (1979) 3 SCC 4

(iv) Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra , (2002) 2 SCC 135

(v) State of Orissa vs. Debender Nath Padhi , AIR 2005 SC 359 SC

(vi) Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat , (2019) 16 SCC 547

(vii) State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others , (2011) 14 SCC 770

(viii) Raja and Others vs. State of Karnataka , (2016) 10 SCC 506

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is based on the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation. It is further submitted that there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the learned court below while declining to allow the discharge application of the petitioner. It is also fur