MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dtd. 3/7/2019 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Session Trial No. 15 of 2019, State Vs. Manoj Gupta, arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2017, under Ss. 363, 366A, 120B, 366, 376, I.P.C. and Sec. 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station, Sakaldeeha, District- Chandauli, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

(3.) The main argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist in the present case is that two statements of the victim have been recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. In the earlier one, she did not support the prosecution case while in the subsequent one, she has made allegations of rape against the accused-revisionist. It is further argued that on this very ground, he had earlier approached this Court by moving an application under Sec. 482 No. 12497 of 2019, whereby this Court vide order dtd. 8/4/2019, passed in this application had directed that accused-revisionist would appear before the trial court and move discharge. In pursuance of this order the accused-revisionist approached the trial court and moved application for discharge which has been dismissed by the impugned order dtd. 3/7/2019, which is erroneous and there was no evidence constituting offence under the above mentioned Sec. against the accused-revisionist. Therefore, the said order should be set aside. It is also argued that the earlier Investigating Officer in its Parcha dtd. 26/7/2017 has opined that the victim was changing her statement for money. It is further argued that in subsequent statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated her age to be 17 years at one place while the date of birth recorded in school certificate is stated by her to be 15/7/1999, by which she would be an adult and the offence under Sec. POCSO Act would not be made out.