NAFE ALIAS ASHUTOSH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C. K. Parekh, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA on admission of the revision. The Criminal Revision is being decided finally at the admission stage.

(2.) Instant revision has been preferred by Nafe alias Ashutosh son of Mahendra Singh, resident of village Rajpur Khampur, District Meerut, against order dated 23-8-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Baghpat, in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2000, State v. Shailendra, pending under Section 376, 506, IPC police station Baraut, District Baghpat, by which the application 14C moved by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr. P.C. was allowed, and the revisionist has been summoned through warrant to appear in the Court and face trial in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2000, under Sections 376, 506, IPC.

(3.) Prosecution case is that FIR was lodged by Smt. Rajo, resident of village Rajpur Khampur, District Meerut, which was registered under Sections 376, 506, IPC at police station Baraut, District Baghpat, on 23-3-1996 at 7.30 p.m. against Shailendra accused, who is already facing sessions trial and Nafe alias Ashutosh. The FIR was registered at the police station on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat, on the application of the informant Smt. Rajo. She had moved application to the Superintendent of Police that she belongs to a poor family. Her daughter Kumari Sunita had gone to the door of Shailendra and Nafe alias Ashutosh both sons of Mahendra, who are residents of her village on 21-3-1998 at 6 p.m. as her fodder was to be cut into pieces at the grass cutting machine of Shailendra and Nafe. Both these persons were present there. They asked Kumari Sunita to go inside the Kothari to make the electric current on so that the machine could start. When she entered inside the room both of them committed rape on her one by one. On her alarm she, Kamal Singh, Ramphal, etc. reached there. The accused persons ran away. The age of Kumari Sunita was mentioned as 14 years in the FIR. She was medically examined. The doctor opined that no opinion could be given about the rape as no external or internal injury was found on any part of Kumari Sunita. In the opinion of the doctor her hymen was old torn and was checked with help of two fingers. After investigation charge sheet was submitted only against Shailendra. When the case was committed to the Court of Session, charge was framed only against Shailendra. Statements of P.W. 1 smt. Rajo, mother of the prosecutrix and informant of the case and P.W. 2 Kumari Sunita were recorded in which they supported the prosecution story. Since both these witnesses had stated that Nafe alias Ashutosh had also committed rape on Kumari Sunita, therefore, when application was moved by the prosecution to summon the revisionist Nafe alias. Ashutosh under Section 319, Cr. P.C., the application was allowed by the impugned order, hence instant revision has been preferred.