IMPORTANT POINT
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.

JUDGMENT :

SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

1. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 1, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 2022 (State vs. Bantu and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2022, under Sections 376 and 120 B I.P.C. Police Station-Orchha, District-Mainpuri.

2. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the application of the revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging them of the offence, under Sections 376 and 120B I.P.C.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that trial Court without considering the facts as well as evidence on record illegally or arbitrarily rejected the discharge application of the revisionists. While rejecting the application of the revisionists, trial Court has not apply its judicial mind or without considering the facts and evidence given in the application. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that informant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Nema Devi had lodged First Information Report against the revisionists-Ramveer Singh, Prem Narayan and Bantu on 23.02.2022 at about 7:04 P.M. while the said occurrence has taken place on 20.02.2022 at about 04:30 P.M to 22.02.2022 at about 5:00 A.M. The informant/opposite party No. 2 has not given any reason for delay in lodging the FIR. It has also been submitted that victim, who is aged about 40 years having four children. At the time of lodging of FIR, Station House Officer, Police Station Orchha had called the revisionists where in the presence of revisionists the first informant, namely, Nema Devi had stated before the police that the house/plot be given to her by the revisionists, if not given the same, she will falsely implicate the revisionists in a rape case. This statement has been recorded as video by mobile, which has been submitted in pen drive to the trial Court by the revisionists. It has also been submitted that there is a contradiction in the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that victim-Nema Devi, after the death of her husband, residing with one Bangali Babu, who left the victim and went to another village. Bangali Babu had entered into an agreement to sale of his house in favour of revisionist No. 2-Ramveer Singh and one another person, but victim has pressurised the revisionist No. 2 to withdraw from the said agreement of the house and when he denied the same, the false criminal case was registered against the revisionists. It has also been submitted that there is no medical evidence of the alleged incident and revisionists only submitted the pen drive before the trial Court, but trial Court did not consider it and arbitrarily passed the impugned order.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that trial Court has passed the impugned order which is based on the evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere in the same.

5. Heard Sri Anuraj Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists and Ms. Seema Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State.

6. The facts relating to the case, in brief, is that victim has lodged FIR on 23.02.2022 alleging that on 20.02.2022 at about 4:30 P.M. accused-Bantu came to her house and told her that revisionist No. 2-Ramveer Singh had called for negotiation of the alleged house/plot as she was familiar with Bantu and Ramveer Singh. Thereafter, on the same day at 4:30 p.m. she went with Bantu to the tubewell of Ramveer. On the request of Ramveer, she remained there at night and Ramveer committed rape with her and co-accused Prem Narayan also tried to outrage her modesty. Co-accused-Bantu was also involved in the conspiracy of the alleged occurrence.

7. During the investigation, victim has given following statements recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C.

8. Before examining the merits of the present case, the ambit, scope and power of the Sessions Court as w