SHAILENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution story is that the applicant was having a tube-well and the alleged victim had gone to that tube-well to fetch water for watering the filed. It was at that stage that the applicant who is alleged to be the owner of the tube-well is said to have blackmailed the victim telling him that the victim shall have to surrender to his carnal instincts otherwise he shall not be provided the desired water. When the victim disagreed the applicant by force took him to the field and satisfied his carnal desire. The submission of the counsel is that the whole story is false and frivolous and the true fact is that the applicant is not having any tube-well at all. Therefore, there was no question for the victim to have approached the applicant for that purpose in the night. Counsel for the applicant has further emphasised that neither the applicant nor any of his relatives have any such tube-well on the said land as has been alleged. The prosecution story lacks the factual basis. In this regard the counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to the order passed by another Bench of this Court at the time of hearing of this application on 10.11.2014, in which the same controversy was raised and the court was constrained to specifically call for a counter affidavit on this point. The I.O. concerned was directed to file counter affidavit as to whether at the place of incident or near the place of incident any tube-well of the applicant or of his any other family member is installed or not and if there is any such tube-well as claimed by the prosecution then what is the khata number of that plot and what is its distance from the place of alleged incident. In compliance of this order of the Court a counter affidavit about the same has been filed on behalf of State. It was specifically averred in the counter affidavit that the place of incident was visited by the deponent and it was found that though at a distance of about 120 steps from the place of incident a tube-well is situated but that land is gata no.152 Mauja Jagatpur and the said land is in the name of one late Kedar Nath, son of Suraj and others. It has been further averred by the deponent that the aforesaid tube-well neither belonged to the accused applicant nor to any of his relatives. The submission of the counsel is that the averment made on behalf of the State completely demolishes the genesis of the prosecution case and the entire edifice of the prosecution story crashes to the ground. The argument is that if there was no tube-well owned by applicant, there was no occasion for the victim to have approached him for that purpose of fetching water nor was their any occasion for the applicant to blackmail the victim on the basis or strength of refusing him the supply of water. In addition to this it has also been submitted by the counsel that the age of the victim is about 14 years and it sounds not very probable that without the help of any weapon or without resorting to any violent coercion by any other means a 14 years old boy may be so easily tamed and compelled for the alleged act of sodomy. The contention is that the victim boy was not a very small child. Apart from this counsel has also submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and frivolous. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 9.7.2014. It has also been submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.