GOVIND Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.M. Sahai, assisted by Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned AGA and Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is in jail since 1/9/2017 in Case Crime No.410 of 2017, under Sec. 376 IPC and Ss. 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow. He has further submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. As per the prosecution story so narrated in the FIR, the present applicant has made oral sex with the daughter of the complainant/ informant, who is aged about eight years. As per the FIR, when the daughter of the complainant was vomiting after meal, the complainant asked about the reason for vomiting, then she told that the present applicant has made oral sex with her.

(3.) Sri Sahai has submitted that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted inasmuch as the family of the complainant was tenant of the present applicant and when the present applicant had told the complainant to vacate his house, this false story was created.