SURAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Pukar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Gyan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ram Lakhan, learned counsel for the father of the informant / complainant inasmuch as in the present case the prosecutrix is the informant herself.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 6/1/2022 in Crime No. 0007/2022 u/s 376, 506 IPC, and 5/6 of POSCO Act, 2012, P.S. Banthra, District Lucknow. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a case of love affair. Even as per the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R. she had gone to Ludhiyana with the present applicant willingly where the present applicant has established physical relation on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the attention has been drawn towards the statement of prosecutrix / informant recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has not leveled any allegation against the present applicant. Particularly, in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she did not supported the prosecution version rather has submitted that she was willingly living with the present applicant. Their relation were consensual. They got married without informing their family members. She subsequently conceived and was blessed with a male child. It has been further submitted that presently the informant / prosecutrix is living with the family members of the applicant and she does not want to go to the place of her parents.