AVIRAL SINGH SATVAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Attreya Dutt Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, VI, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 431 of 2018 (State Vs. Aviral & Others) whereby application 8-kha under section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that no offence under section 376 IPC as well as of other sections are made out and the Learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that opposite party no. 2 herself had come to the house of the revisionist to stay there and upon being refused to allow her to stay, she would refuse to leave. It has also not been appreciated that in her statement under sections 164 Cr. P.C. she herself has not made any statement that she was raped by the accused revisionist and yet Section 376 IPC has been imposed. The prosecution story would reveal that on the one hand the opposite party no. 2 is claiming that she herself went to reside with revisionist no. 1 who was known to her while on the other in the F.I.R. she has not even named the revisionist nos. 1 and 2. In FIR.she has clearly stated that she had gone to stay with the revisionist no. 1 after taking consent of her parents but the investigating officer has not even recorded the statement of her parents. There are serious contradictions in the F.I.R. and the statement made by the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr. P.C.. The opposite party no. 2 has made a statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. that she had called the police at 100 number from railway station New Delhi, but no information about the same was given by her to the investigating officer nor did the investigating officer collect any evidence in this regard during entire investigation. The malafide of the opposite party no. 2 would be clear from the fact that in the F.I.R. she has given her address as that of the revisionist no. 1. The present prosecution has been initiated only in order to blackmail the revisionist no. 1 and his family which would be apparent from the fact that when the real Bua and real brother of the opposite party no. 2 were residing in Delhi/NCR, even then she preferred to stay in the house of revisionist no. 1 of her own free will with some oblique motives to implicate the revisionists. It is the admitted case of the opposite party no. 2 that revisionist no. 1 had requested the opposite party no. 2 to go out from his house but she refused. The medical examination report does not substantiate any offence under section 376 IPC. Therefore it is argued that the trial court has committed grave error in rejecting the discharge application by forcing the revisionist to face the trial. The impugned order is a cryptic one which does not disclose any reasons. As far as revisionist no. 2 is concerned he was neither relative of opposite party no. 2 nor had he any connection in the present matter and was residing separate in his hostel and was pursuing studies. He has been solely implicated in this false case when opposite party no. 2 refused to go away from the house of the revisionist no. 1, the revisionist no. 2 was also called upon by the revisionist no. 1 for moral support only. The impugned order is illegal perverse and against the provisions of law as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases and the same deserves to be set aside.