NARAIN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Shanker, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. and perused the material on record.

(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that the statement of eye-witness Mogia was recorded by the Investigating Officer, wherein she has stated that she has not seen the offence of rape with the prosecutrix committed by the present applicants. IT is further contended that Smt. Sumitra, mother in law of prosecutrix has admitted the above facts in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. There was litigation going on regarding land between both the parties, Therefore, the present applicant has been implicated falsely due to this enmity. IT is further contended that no opinion of rape has been given by the doctor. The prosecutrix is a married woman aged about 34 years, having three children and the applicant is aged about 22 years. In such circumstances, the offence of rape cannot be done.

(3.) THEREFORE, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and prima facie offence of gang rape is made out. In such circumstances, the bail application of the present applicant is not liable to be allowed.