PRADEEP YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dtd. 2/4/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, Dumka in S.T. Case No.127 of 2021, arising out of Deoghar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.13 of 2019 registered under Ss. 376, 511, 354-A, 354-B, 354-D, 379, 506, 509 and 34 of the I.P.C., whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has completely erred in dismissing the discharge application of the petitioner by passing a very cryptic order without appreciating the statement of all the independent witnesses, who had not corroborated the allegations made by the prosecutrix in the complaint. It is further submitted that the learned court below has completely ignored the statement of witness Ajay Kumar Singh and Dinesh Kumar Singh, who had stated that the petitioner never visited the hotel on the night of 20/4/2019. The impugned order is based on perverse finding. It is also submitted that there was delay of 13 days in lodging the F.I.R. which is very crucial factor for disposing of the discharge application. The court below has given finding that the location of the informant and the petitioner was almost the same because as per cyber police report the location of the prosecutrix's mobile phone on 20/4/2019 at 8.30 to 9.10 p.m. was in Jyoti Nagar (Karnibag) and between 9.34 to 9.46 p.m. it was in Chandni Chowk (Sarraf Road) which is 5 to 6 kilometer away from the Hotel Shivshristi. As per prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place between 9.20 to 9.45 p.m, therefore, it was quite impossible that the alleged offence took place against the prosecutrix in Shivshristi Hotel. The court below has not considered the entire evidence to make out the case for proceeding against the accused. After occurrence, the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix was also not taken into consideration which was to enable the court below to reach on the proper conclusion in disposing the discharge application. The petitioner has been implicated in this case on account of political vendetta. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied upon following case law