IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
Upendra and Another - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 1416 of 2023
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319, 161, 164, 319, 156(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections-506 and 376 D - Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Act 2012 - Section-7, 8 - Enticed away his daughter - Threatened to get married - Sexual assault - Repeatedly raped her - Father of victim making allegations that co-accused enticed away his 13 Year daughter – There was no other evidence on record showing that any other person has seen incident as stated by PW-1. [Para 18]
Finding of the Court: In examination-in-chief, she stated that all persons committed rape upon her repeatedly but in cross-examination, PW-1 stated that except Pawan, only revisionist no.1 committed rape upon her and no other person committed rape upon her - During trial there was only statement of PW-1 which was basis of passing impugned order and there was no other evidence on record showing that any other person has seen above incident as stated by PW-1 - As per school leaving certificate of victim, she is minor, therefore, her statement recorded under Sections-161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is not relevant, is concerned, that is also misconceived because if this reasoning is accepted then her statement during trial as PW-1 will also cannot be treated as evidence - Even otherwise, it is established position of law that minority of a witness itself cannot be a ground to reject his/her testimony if he/she is quite mature to understand his or her testimony - Therefore, in totality considering material collected by prosecuting agency during investigation available at time of inquiry as well as statement of PW-1 recorded during trial is not sufficient for summoning revisionists as additional accused in exercise of power under Section-319 Cr.P.C. to establish complicity of revisionists in crime.
Result: Revision allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ravikant Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. By way of present revision, revisionists, who are two in numbers, have challenged the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Rape and POCSO Act), Court No.1, Fatehpur in Special Sessions Trial No.101 of 2019, by which application of first informant (father of victim) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and revisionists were summoned under Sections-506 and 376 D IPC read with Section-7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Act 2012 to face the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that for the incident dated 25.02.2019, FIR was lodged on 06.03.2019 by the father of victim under Sections-363, 366 and 506 IPC in Case Crime No.83 of 2019 at Police Station-Bindki, District-Fatehpur, making allegations that co-accused, Pawan Raidas enticed away his 13 year daughter Renu Devi and present revisionists also helped him in the aforesaid crime. During investigation, statement of victim under Section-161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, under Section-164 Cr.P.C. was recorded but victim did not make any allegations against the present revisionists. On the contrary, she admitted that she had run away with Pawan Kumar willingly for marriage because she likes Pawan. During investigation, medical examination of victim was also conducted in which no opinion about sexual assault was given and CMO by certificate dated 04.04.2019 mentioned the age of victim Renu Devi as 19 year on the basis of radiological examination. Thereafter, police submitted charge-sheet dated 01.06.2019 against the co-accused, Pawan Raidas and involvement of revisionists was found to be false. It is also submitted that during investigation co-accused, Pawan as well as the victim Renu Devi and also the present revisionists had also approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7322 of 2019 challenging the FIR of Case Crime No.83 of 2019 registered at Police Station-Bindki, District-Fatehpur. In that writ petition, the victim Renu Devi had filed an affidavit stating therein that she willingly run away with Pawan and got married with him. On the basis of aforesaid affidavit of victim Renu Devi, writ petition was disposed of by order dated 15.03.2019 granting interim protection to all the petitioners including the present revisionists from arrest till submission of chargesheet.
4. It is further submitted that all these documents were before the court below during inquiry and on the basis of the evidence available on record, charges were framed against co-accused Pawan Raidas. During trial, PW-1 (victim) had taken u-turn and had stated that the present revisionists along with the co-accused, Pawan forced her to sit in Baleno Car and threatened that she had to get married with Pawan. Thereafter, they kept her at Maharajpur and repeatedly raped her for many days and thereafter co-accused, Pawan forced her to sign on blank paper and then brought her to this Court and thereafter, when the police raided at their house then they left the victim at Bindki, Lalauli Chauraha where the police recovered her. It was further contended that the statement of PW-1 was recorded at the instance of her father who is the first informant because aunty of revisionists, namely, Gudiya Devi had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 13.11.2017 which was registered as complaint case no.57 of 2018 in which summoning order was also passed on 19.07.2022 summoning the father of PW-1 (Jai Karan Nishad) and thereafter charges were also framed on 19.07.2022, against the first informant, Jai Karan Nishad for the incident dated 18.09.2017 for outraging her modesty, beating and injuring her as well as her family members.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists lastly submitted that there is no sufficient material to summon them
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is being quoted as power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - When strong and cogent evidence comes against a person before the Court and such power should not be exercised in a casual a....
The court emphasized that a prospective accused can only be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if strong and cogent evidence emerges, not merely based on allegations or inconsistencies in witness sta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise this power, ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.