NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Subhash Gosain, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Singh, Sri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that a Non Cognizable Report No. 70 of 2012 was lodged at police station Kapsethi, district Varanasi lodged by one Samarjeet Singh father of the prosecutrix on 21.5.2012 at 18:15 p.m. under Section 498 I.P.C. with respect to an incident alleged to have taken place on 20.5.2012 against Raj Kumar Singh and Amit Kumar Singh, who are the real brothers sons of Daroga Singh regarding that the accused Raj Kumar Singh had taken away her married daughter with the assistance of his real brother Amit Kumar Singh. Thereafter on 15.6.2012 her daughter was dropped at her house by the said accused persons and on 16.6.2012, the N.C.R. was converted in First Information Report which was registered as Case Crime No. 76 of 2012 under Sections 498, 366, 376 (2) (Chha), 493, 342, I.P.C. IT has further been submitted that the victim is a major girl aged about 19 years as per the supplementary report which has been annexed as annexure-4 to bail application. IT is urged that on 23.6.2012, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the name of the applicant, who is the cousin brother co-accused Raj Kumar, who had taken the victim along with his real brother Amit Kumar on 20.5.2012, has come into light. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant along with other co-accused persons, namely, Raj Kumar, Narendra, Amit and Jai had taken the victim forcibly on 20.5.2012 at about 2-3 a.m. in the night when when she was sleeping at the door step of her house in a red colour vehicle in which mother of accused Raj Kumar, namely, Manorma and Aunt, namely, Meena, co- accused Amit and Raj Kumar were sitting took her to Allahabad and they kept her in a Hotel where co-accused Raj Kumar, Amit and Jai and the applicant had committed rape on her. Thereafter the victim was taken to district Surat in Gujrat where she was confined for three days in a room and applicant along with accused Amit, Narendra committed rape on her. Co- accused Raj Kumar did not go to Surat. Thereafter the victim was taken by the applicant and co-accused Amit, and Jai to Punjab where she stayed for some days and there also the three accused including the applicant had committed rape on her. In Punjab, co-accused Raj Kumar and Dular also came where all the accused persons along with the applicant committed rape on her. Then, they took her on a train and brought her to Varanasi and on the railway station in a red colour vehicle in which the mother and aunt, namely, Manorma and Meena of co-accused Raj Kumar and Amit were sitting brought her to Chandauli and kept her there for two days and thereafter in the night left her at her house.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant has only been falsely implicated in the present case by the prosecutrix at the instance of her father Samarjeet only because the applicant is the cousin brother of co-accused Raj Kumar though he had no concern with the present case nor he accompanied co-accused Raj Kumar and his parents anywhere. The applicant in is jail since 27.6.2012.