AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner has been named in the FIR and the complainant alleges that a gang rape has been committed upon her by the petitioner and two others. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations, made in the FIR, are false and at the relevant time he was present in Nepal in connection with his business and for that he has submitted a Compact Disk to be viewed by this Court. However, he admitted that he has not complied the requirement of Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as far as this electronic evidence is concerned.

(3.) It is stated by the leaned A.G.A. on behalf of the State that though initially the offence was registered under sec. 376(2)(g) and 5(g) of the Indian Penal Code, later on, realizing the fact that a wrong sec. has been quoted in the FIR, the offence under Sec. 376 (d) has been substituted for the offence under sec. 376(2)(g) of the IPC.