Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4419 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ansar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Pandey,Mohd. Aslam,Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Mohd. Aslam, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Ist, Saharanpur in Session Trial No.447 of 2019 (State of U.P. Versus Shahid and others) arising out of Case Crime No.45 of 2019 under Sections 376-D and 506 I.P.C.,Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur, by which the trial court has rejected the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionists.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order passed by the court below is absolutely illegal and the judge has completely overlooked that there were several infirmities in the prosecution case and the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were absolutely unreliable and contained material contradictions. He has further argued that regarding an alleged incident of gang-rape by the revisionists on the prosecutrix who is a married lady on 1.11.2018 an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party no.2, prosecutrix on 19.11.2018 on which F.I.R. was registered against the revisionists on 13.1.2019. He has further submitted that the case was thoroughly investigated and the Investigating Officer submitted closure report against the accused. The opposite party no.2, then filed a protest petition on which final report was rejected by the trial court and the revisionists were summoned to face trial under Sections 376-D and 506 I.P.C. The said order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.24731 of 2019. However, it appears that vide order dated 28.06.2019 in the aforesaid application the Court was not inclined to quash the order dated 5.4.2019 and permitted the accused to move an application for discharge through counsel before the trial court within one month and till the decision on discharge application, no coercive measures were to be taken against the revisionists.
Pursuant thereto, an application for discharge was moved before the trial court which was rejected by the impugned order which may be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel of the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State have submitted that order impugned in the present revision is perfectly justified inasmuch as the court below has relied upon material especially the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has levelled specific allegation of gang-rape against the revisionists. Therefore, from any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that there were absolutely no evidence against the revisionists on which they may be discharged for the offences inter alia under Section 376-D I.P.C. It is further argued that the accused were summoned after rejection of final report by a reasoned order by itself would show that there was, prima facie, material evidence to frame charge against the revisionists. It is stated that it is well established by catena of decisions that even grave suspicion can form basis for framing of charge against the accused. Therefore, the present revision may be dismissed.
Considering rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the impugned order, I find no reason to interfere in the present revision. The order impugned is perfectly justified.
The revision is bereft of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 MN/-