JUDGMENT

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Advocate assisted by Sri Shambhu Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the summoning order dated 04.10.2019 and the order of bailable warrant dated 15.11.2019, passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the informant lodged a First Information Report against the present appellant and other accused persons on 27.07.2017, alleging therein, the incident dated 16.05.2017, under Sections 376D, 342, 506 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, which was registered as Case Crime No. 224 of 2017, at P.S. Jaidpur, District Barabanki. After lodging the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix on 16.08.2017, wherein, the prosecutrix stated that the appellant along with another co-accused, namely, Anjani Verma committed rape upon her. The medical examination of the complainant/prosecutrix was also got done in District Women Hospital, Barabanki, on 17.08.2017 and as per the medical examination report, the evidence of rape was found. Thereafter, on 29.08.2017, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, before the learned Trial Court, in which the statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was reiterated and further, in her subsequent statement (Majeed Bayan) dated 08.12.2017, the prosecutrix stated that she has been used as a tool by Digvijay Verma as she was asked to lodge a false and fabricated case so as to mount pressure over the appellant, who is the witness in the Case Crime No. 456 of 2017. Further plea is that the appellant was on duty as Lecturer of Physics in an aided Government Inter-College, namely, Shri Deshraj Narang Dayanand Inter College, Govind Nagar, Walterganj, District Basti and he was present over there, in between 7:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. on 15th and 16th of May, 2017, i.e., the date, when the incident is said to have taken place.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the summoning order dated 04.10.2019 and the bailable warrant dated 15.11.2019, are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidences, which were available on record. He submits that after lodging of the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer, when found no cogent piece of evidence to substantiate the incident, submitted the Final Report and after delay of 20 months, the protest application of the appellant has been accepted.

5. Further submission is that as per the medical examination of the prosecutrix, there is no evidence of rape and that also does not support the version of the prosecutrix. He added that no proper reasons have been recorded while accepting the protest application and the same is based on conjecture and surmises.

6. Adding his arguments, he submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and evidences that the appellant was working as Lecturer in a Government-Aided College, namely, Shri Deshraj Narang Dayanand Inter College, Govind Nagar, Walterganj, District Basti and on the date and time of the said incident, he was on duty and furthermore, there is a clear cut evidence emerging out from the statement of the prosecutrix