Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3473 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ananya Agrahari @ Sonu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nitin Chopra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
This criminal revision has been against the order dated 11.10.2021 passed in S.T. No.412 of 2019 in case crime no.152 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Ananya Agrahari) passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi.
By the impugned order, the learned sessions court had rejected the application for discharge moved by the revisionist/ accused.
Learned counsel for the revisionist mainly contended that there is no sufficient evidence on record and revisionist accused have falsely implicated on the basis of concocted story. The version as stated in the FIR regarding arrest of the accused-revisionist no.2 from her premises, is absolutely incorrect as she had gone to the police station along with one neighbour. Learned counsel also contended that the version of both the accused (revisionist) have not been taken into account and they have been made an accused only on the basis of statement of the husband of the revisionist who was not present at the spot. Further no statement of victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. There is no independent witness, even the statement of Smt. Chanda who accompanied the revisionist no.2 to the police station has been recorded. The husband of revisionist no.2 was living separately from her and was only interested in getting the custody of the child. The version of the prosecution in the FIR is concocted and highly doubtful. The said FIR was lodged as a conspiracy by the informant in order to help the husband of the revisionist no.2 to take the custody of the child. In the FIR, it is stated that the victim-Shivam was bleeding and was unconscious when the informant reached the place of occurrence but no medical examination of the victim a five years old boy was conducted. He was also not given any first aid. Instead he was kept at Adampur Police Station for more than five hours before he was handed over to the child care Varanasi and his medical examination was done on 27.06.2019. The time of the medical examination is not mentioned in this medical report. The investigation of the entire matter has been done and in gross violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. The statement of the victim recorded as video recording in the compact disc and pen- drive was not provided to the revisionist, in violation of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and accused-persons were virtually debarred to know the incriminating material on which the prosecution is going to use against the accused. Learned Magistrate has failed to consider the aforesaid facts and material and has rejected the discharge application of the accused applicant. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in a cursory manner without appreciating the evidence and material on record. The order is perverse and illegal.
The learned Standing Counsel submitted that there are specific allegations in the FIR naming the accused persons. One of the accused person has been arrested on the spot by the police while the other from her house in the same transaction. The victim who is five years old has been recovered from the spot in an injured condition and his medical examination has been conducted and in his medical report, there are visible marks of injuries. There is sufficient material on record, on the basis of which the learned sessions court has came to the conclusion that the charges are liable to be framed against the accused- revisionist.
The accused persons all named in the FIR. There are specific allegations against them. The victim has been recovered from the spot in an injured condition and one of the accused has been arrested from the spot. The medical examination report indicates visible marks of injuries on the body of the victim. The points as raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, cannot be considered at this stage. It is matter of trial.
It is settled principle of law that at the stage of charge framing only material available on record is to be considered and it is to be seen whether a prima-facie case is made out or not and the evidence available if left uncorroborated will culminate into conviction or not. Learned Magistrate has discussed the entire facts and the evidence available on record. After appreciating it, he has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material on record to frame the charge against the accused-persons. So there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision lack merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 C. MANI