KHUSHABE ALI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and informant counsel, Pawan Kumar Shukla and perused the record.

(2.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.09.2020, in Case Crime No. 337 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C and read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bhojpur, District - Moradabad.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R was lodged on 08.09.2020, in Case Crime No. 337 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C and read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bhojpur, District - Moradabad. After lapse of more than three months of the alleged incident, it was alleged that the accused/applicant and co-accused had demanded dowry coupled with torture and beating her badly resulting in breach of her modesty and it further alleged that the accused-applicant, while demanding dowry from her, she was also subjected to unnatural intercourse, as such, the victim has fully supported the version of the F.I.R The statement if victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded in which, she has stated before the Investigating Officer as to what was revealed by her counsel. It is further contended that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, the victim did not utter anything about the unnatural intercourse being done by accused except the intercourse done by the accused-applicant. It is contended that it is purely a family dispute, and the F.I.R of the alleged incident was lodged belatedly and no explanation thereof was given for the delay. It is further contended that as per amendment of Section 375 I.P.C the definition of 'rape' includes so many things also. It is contended that as per Explanation - 2 Appended to the Section aforesaid revealed about the sexual intercourse with his own wife and the wife shall not be under fifteen years of age is no "rape". It is further argued keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case offence punishable under Section 315 I.P.C, is not made out. It contended that Section 315 of I.P.C was amended and was substituted by Criminal Law Amendment Act No. 13 of 2013 and the present case has taken place in the year 2020, therefore this case squarely covered by the aforesaid act. It is further alleged that there is no criminal history of the accused and has prayed that the accused-applicant be enlarged on bail. It has been lastly argued that she is languishing in jail since 17.11.2020, having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.