RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated July 26, 2022 passed by learned Single Judge has been impugned by filing present intra-Court appeal.

(2.) The appellant was before this Court impugning order dated November 21, 2020 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun whereby the representation filed by him was dismissed. It is a case in which the appellant was selected to the post of Constable vide selection list dated May 15, 2018. He received call letter dated June 9, 2018 for medical checkup and completion of other formalities. In terms thereof, the appellant was to appear for medical examination on June 12, 2018. The admitted case of the appellant is that immediately after coming to know about his selection as a Constable, his enemies in the village became active and a false First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') was registered against him on July 3, 2018 under Sec. 354A(1)(iv) of IPC. The allegation in the FIR is that the present appellant namely, the accused named in the FIR, has enticed the prosecutrix inside his house and used certain obscene words. Even in the statement got recorded by the prosecutrix under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the stand taken in the complaint made to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Thereafter, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she improved from the version as contained in the FIR and it was added that she was molested and she was ravished with use of force by the accused (appellant herein). The aforesaid statement was recorded on July 5, 2018. Thereafter, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on July 7, 2018. No injury was found on any part of her body.

(3.) The appellant faced trial. While getting her statement recorded in the Court, the prosecutrix stated that nothing, as stated in her statement to the police at the time of registration of FIR or what was stated in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., had happened. She had not lodged complaint and her statements were recorded under pressure of her brother and father. As a result of which, the charges having not been proved, the accused, namely the present appellant was acquitted vide judgment and order dated January 27, 2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act.