GAURAV YADAV @ PHADKA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order on Bail Application No.172152 of 2017

(2.) As per the prosecution story, on the intervening night of 3/4.5.2011 the complainant was sleeping with his family. His eight years old daughter was sleeping besides her mother. At about 00 A.M., his wife noticed that her daughter was lying into blood. Blood was oozing from different parts of her body. On enquiry, his daughter informed him that in the night, one man took her away and raped her. She further stated that with intention to kill her, he inflicted injuries on her body. As the victim was badly injured, she after sometime fainted. Subsequently she was taken to the hospital.

(3.) Sri G.S. Hajela learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strongly pressed the bail application with the contention that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case; that there is no evidence against the appellant which may show his participation in the alleged crime and that the appellant was not named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance in this regard on the testimony of the girl in support of his contention that the girl is a tutored witness. Further contention is that PW-1 Bhagwan Das Diwakar and PW-2 Satish are not the eye witness of the occurrence, even PW-4 Smt. Raj Kumari, the mother of the victim with whom the victim was sleeping is not an eye witness. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the victim was tutored by the parents and therefore, on behest of parents she has given statement against the appellant. He has placed reliance on the testimony of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is being quoted herein below:-