KANHAIYA LAL MISHRA 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 entire prosecution story is false and concocted and the allegations have been made against the applicant with the malicious object of defiling his image in society as the applicant is having a public face and has also a political life. As is not very unusual being in public life for long, he has also incurred some enemies and one Sandeep @ Sonu is one such person, who nurtures strong feelings of disdain against the applicant. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph-12 of the affidavit in which it has been asserted that there was a dispute over a landed property and an application had been moved against the aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu. At one point of time Sandeep@Sonu had also assaulted upon the applicant in which the applicant sustained several injuries regarding which an F.I.R. against the aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu was also lodged as Case Crime No. 16 of 2018, under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S.- Aurai, District- Bhadohi on 25.1.2018. Reliance in this regard has been placed on annexure no. 7 to this application. Apart from this, the brother of applicant had also lodged a report against aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu and some other persons, which was registered as Case Crime No. 14 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S.- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi. To substantiate the same reliance has been placed on annexure no. 8 to this application. Beside this, a relative of the applicant namely Smt. Maya Devi has also lodged an F.I.R. against Sandeep@Sonu which was registered as Case Crime No. 182 of 2017, under Sections 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi. Indignated because of the aforesaid background, Sandeep@Sonu hatched a conspiracy against the applicant and contrived to lay a trap in order to embroil the applicant in such kind of controversy as is involved in the present case and managed to get this entirely false case lodged through one Laxmi, who also originally hails from the district Bhadohi. Learned counsel has also tried to show proximate nexus between the alleged victim Laxmi and the aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu and in that regard, reliance has been place upon annexure no. 9 to this application, which contains the details of mobile numbers and call details of Laxmi and Sandeep@Sonu. Counsel has also tried to show that the mobile number belonging to the victim is 7518155565 while the mobile number which has been used by Sandeep@Sonu is 9918560001. The customer application form showing number of Sandeep@Sonu has also been annexed as part of annexure no. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has emphasized upon the call details pertaining to date 22.5.2018 which is said to be the date of incident and which shows that the alleged victim had made contact with aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu on the day of incident a number of times. Contention is that the proximity of the victim with aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu and the inimical relationship of the applicant with Sandeep@Sonu, have been in the background of false implication of the applicant in this case and the aforesaid clinching circumstances are sufficient to expose the conspiracy hatched against the applicant. Further submission is that there are serious incompatibilities between the version given out in the F.I.R. and the later version given before the Magistrate by the victim and the entire story introduced before the Magistrate about the victim having attempted to dial 100 number and then failing in the same, the forceful opening of bathroom by the applicant and the entire story of deleting the mobile numbers by the victim, were facts conspicuously absent in the version given in the F.I.R. All this story was also conspicuously absent in the statement given before the investigating officer. Counsel has also tried to show the other elements of improbability in the prosecution story. In addition to it, it has also been argued that even if the prosecution version is taken as such it would indicate that the victim after coming in contact with the applicant had developed intimate acquaintance with him, had also exchanged her telephone number with him, was keeping constant touch with him, and was expecting that the applicant would be providing her with some job. Even on the day of incident she is said to have gone to the applicant in the hope of getting a job. Argument is that all these circumstances and the manner in which they have been described by the victim are giving rise to the parallel probability of she being either a consenting party in the whole episode or of being an instrument who was simply baiting and laying trap upon the applicant in order to make scandal out of it at the behest of somebody who in the present case was none else than the aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu with whom the details of enmity have already been described. Further submissions is that the victim is a married lady fully mature and grown up while the applicant is a person above 60 years in age. This is certainly not a case where the victim was a naive minor who could be easily mislead because of her innocence or be exploited by anybody against her will. 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 and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is in jail since 23.5.2018 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.