SAURABH DOBHAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue, which crops up for consideration in the present Criminal Revision is as to what would be the impact of an application paper No. 22(kha/1), 22(kha/2) and 22(kha/3), being filed by the accused/revisionist under trial for the commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC, when it was resorted to by the revisionist on 9th January 2019, and that too after closure of cross examination of PW1 on 9th January 2019. The revisionist moved three applications i.e. application paper number 22(kha/1), 22(kha/2) and 22(kha/3). All the three applications are shown to have been filed on 9th January 2019 by the revisionist, praying for:-

(2.) He further submits that by way of an application paper number 22(kha/2) that the aforesaid nine conversations which have been reduced into nine CDs and produced by way of an application paper number 22(kha/1) he had prayed that the said applications of taking voice samples of the prosecutrix may be taken on record and it may also be allowed in the interest of justice to be tested with the telephonic conversation which he intends to place on record by way of paper number 22(kha/1). In the third application, which he has filed before the trial Court i.e. application paper number 22(kha/3) he has prayed for that apart from taking the said conversations on record, for taking voice samples of the prosecutrix it may further be directed to be compared with the transcription, by the third application he has also prayed for the aforesaid CDs and telephonic conversations, which he has prayed for to be taken on record, the same may be sent to the forensic laboratory for its testing along with the voice samples of the prosecutrix as sought for to be taken by way of paper number 22kha/1 so as to enable him to establish his innocence in the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC, which has been complained of against him by the complainant (prosecutrix).

(3.) The precise circumstances as pleaded by the revisionist, under which the entire controversy has emanated for consideration is that on account of the some intimate relationship between the prosecutrix (complainant) and revisionist, and on account of certain acts and actions of the revisionist, the prosecutrix is said to have registered the FIR being FIR number 185 of 2017 at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, raising certain set of allegations pertaining to the commission of the offence of physical relationships without there being a consent extended by the prosecutrix and it was alleged that it was a forceful physical relationship, which was complained of by the prosecutrix (complainant) without the consent being extended by her.