Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197524

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3558 of 2023

Revisionist :- Tota Ram

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Saini

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

1. As per office report dated 11.10.2023, notice issued to opposite

party no. 2 has been served personally but despite service of notice

on one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the

revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against

the order dated 07.04.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge /

Additional Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No. 2, Mathura,

in Special Sessions Trial No. 4075 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Tota

Ram and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 466 of 2018,

under Sections 363, 366, 354 I.P.C., Section 7/8 P.O.C.S.O. Act,

Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, by which the

discharge application filed by the revisionist was rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report was

lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 18.07.2018 against the

revisionist with the allegation that on 13.07.2018, the revisionist

has enticed away the minor daughter of informant aged about 14

years and case was registered as Case Crime No. 0466 of 2018,

under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 P.O.C.S.O. Act in

Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura. The Investigating

Officer during investigation has recorded the statement of

informant, victim and other witnesses. The informant in his

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and victim in her

statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have

supported the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer after

completing the investigation has submitted charge sheet against

the revisionist Tota Ram on 06.08.2018 under Sections 363, 366,

342, 354, 368 I.P.C. and Section 7/8, 16/17 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act.

The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the

revisionist vide order dated 01.11.2018.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the

revisionist has moved an application for discharge on 05.08.2022

on the ground that the revisionist has not committed any offence as

alleged in the first information report and it is a case of false

implication. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer

without conducting fair investigation and without considering the

statements of informant, victim and other witnesses and ignoring

the entire materials, which were collected during investigation had

submitted charge sheet against revisionist. The victim was not

recovered from the possession of revisionist and he was arrested

from his house. The victim in her statement recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not levelled any allegation

regarding kidnapping and molestation against the revisionist.

Lastly, it is submitted that the learned trial court without

considering the entire evidence collected during investigation and

without applying his judicial mind had rejected the discharge

application of the revisionist, vide order dated 07.04.2023.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State

has submitted that the revisionist was named in the first

information report and the victim had also levelled allegation

against the revisionist that she was entice away by revisionist. The

informant and other witnesses have also levelled allegation of

kidnapping against the revisionist. The discharge application filed

by revisionist was rightly rejected by the learned trial court and

there is no illegality or irregularity in any manner. Lastly, it is

submitted that the learned trial court had recorded finding that

prima-facie case is made out against th