ARVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant be taken on record.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 04.03.2014 for lodging F.I.R. The above application was pending before the Magistrate concerned. In the meantime the complainant has moved an application on 26.03.2014 to District Magistrate, on the basis of that application the F.I.R. of the alleged incident was lodged on 27.03.2014 with the delay of one month six days. It has further been submitted that in medical report the age of the victim has been shown about 18-19 years. In fact at the time of the alleged incident the victim was major. The prosecution story is not believable or probable. There are material contradiction in the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that the statement of victim has been recorded as PW-2. Although the victim has supported the prosecution version her her examination-in-chief but in her cross-examination she has stated that she could not see and identify the actual culprits. She has further stated that she has disclosed the name of applicant on the saying of villagers. She has also stated that applicant has not given any threat to her. The victim in her cross-examination has not supported the prosecution version and has specifically stated that applicant has not committed rape upon her. There is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The medical report also does not corroborate the prosecution version. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 29.03.2014.