Point of Law: For invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal and learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri L. D. Rajbhar learned A.G.A. for the state.

2. The present criminal revision purported to be under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for challenging the order dated 8.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Bareilly, in Special Case No. 09 of 2020 (State Vs. Vedram), Case Crime No. 168 of 2019 under sections 363 366, 370-A, 376 and 120-B IPC and section 16/17 POCSO Act, P.S. Cantt. District Bareilly, where by the applicants have been summoned in exercise of power as conferred under section 319 Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details are that the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 being mother of the victim on 21.05.2019 being FIR no. 168 u/s 363, 366 of IPC against one Vedram alleging that when the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the mother of the victim while returning after purchasing vegetables on 11.12.2017 at 6:00 p.m. then she found that the victim being Ms. Khushboo who is aged about 14 years was missing from the house. Therefore, after constant search was being made to trace her whereabouts but she was not found however, three days before the lodging of the FIR i.e. 21.05.2019 the victim made a phone call on the mobile number on her brother Pushpendra bearing number 9027989065 as well as in the mobile number of the opposite party bearing number 8057233073 and also in the mobile number 7453092181 and 7060193554 informing that that Vedram R/o Vandia, P.S. Fatehganj (East) had misguided the victim and he has taken her away to Kasba being Lalkua. It was also alleged in the FIR that Vedram used to treat her badly and harass her and when the victim got an opportunity while being alone, she has made the said call. A copy of the FIR has been annexed as annexure-1 of the paper book. It appears that the statements of the Khushbu, the victim was recorded on 12-6-2019 under section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has stated that she is aged about 25 years and she developed friendship with Vedram thereafter, they used to meet each other. She further stated that for about one year back she had called Vedram to her house and she had gone with him according to her will and she got married about 1 year back in Arya Samaj Mandir and she has given birth to a female child about 3 months back and she had also come to know that her mother being opposite party no. 2 has lodged an FIR against Vedram, therefore, she has come to the police station and stated that Vedram is not guilty at all. Thereafter, it appears that the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 19-6-2019 wherein she has stated that her aunty being applicant no. 1 and the applicant no. 2 Suresh had sold her to Vedram for an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and Vedram took her to Ghaziabad wherein she was confined in a room for more than one and half year and she was not allowed to go out and the bad act of rape was being committed with her by Vedram which resulted into the birth of female child and She further stated that threats were also administered to her that she should not disclose this to anybody about the truth otherwise she would be killed and further, she never wants to remain with Vedram and she has never got married with him. A copy of the statement recorded under section 164 CrPC is annexed as annexure-4 of the paper book. It has also come on record that the medical examination of the victim was also done wherein her age were determined to be 17 years and consequently, the Investigating Officer included the offence under section 376 of IPC and ¾ POCSO Act. Thereafter, it appears that charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 08.07.2019 under section 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act against Vedram. However during the trial, the opposite party no. 2 being Smt. Nanhi Devi was examined as P.W. 1 on 24.10.2019 in Special Case No. 959 of 2019 where