Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 840 of 2019 Revisionist :- Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Ashish Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Shri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashish Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA, Shri Amit Kumar Singh for State.
This revision has been filed under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against order dated 01.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 1, Meerut in Session Trial No. 992 of 2016 (State Vs. Jugnu) arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2016, under Sections 376, 366, 506 IPC, PS Jani, District Meerut pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 1, Meerut whereby application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party No. 2 has been allowed.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the victim is scribe of the First Information Report. She has not alleged the rape to have been committed by the accused revisionist, rather she has mentioned in the First Information Report that on 30.03.2016 at about 11:00 A.M. her neighbour co- accused Jugnu and his brother Monu (revisionist) had taken her to Meerut on the pretext that they would get her husband bailed out and after reaching Meerut, they had administered her some noxious substance in cold drink by which she became inebriated and thereafter when she opened her eyes she found herself in a room and at that time co-accused Jugnu was with her and since then Jugnu continued to rape her and revisionist Monu used to reach money and other articles to the co-accused Jugnu and thereafter when the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded on 16.04.2016, she has repeated the same version as mentioned in the First Information Report and thereafter, when she made statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 15.05.2016, she changed her version/improved her version and has stated that when she became conscious, Jugnu the main accused had committed rape upon her and Monu was standing outside the gate. It was further stated that her son was also with her, on whose head a knife was pointed by Jugnu and thereafter Monu had also committed rape upon her. On 15.05.2016 she went away from there. Citing this statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it was argued that if Monu (revisionist) was involved in commission of rape upon her, there was no way why she would miss it in mentioning in the First Information Report which was written by her. Further, it is pointed out that the victim had given an application against persons of her matrimonial home annexed at page No. 74 of the paper book in which she has made allegation that they had thrown her out of the house in the clothes she was wearing on 30.03.2016 and it was pointed out that it is improbable that when the said occurrence that she was stating to have happened with her, on the same day, the present occurrence of rape would also have been committed. Therefore, it is very palpable that the accused revisionist has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the trial court has missed out this aspect of the case.
In rebuttal learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has argued that name of the accused revisionist has been mentioned in the First Information Report as co-accused by the opposite party No. 2 although allegation of rape is not made against him, but he was assisting the commission of rape as per the version of the opposite party No. 2 and in that regard statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is there, apart from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; although there is an exaggeration made by her in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. saying that the revisionist also committed rape upon her. It cannot be said that the offences under other Sections 366 and 506 are not made out against the accused revisionist.
I have gone through the impugned order. It is mentioned in the impugned order that in the First Information Report the role of accused revisionist has been mentioned as being involved in the presence occurrence because he used to supply money as well as other articles of need to the main accused and further, it is mentioned by the trial court that at this stage, on the basis of sufficient evidence which if left unrebutted, it cannot be denied that he would be convicted and accordingly, the impugned order has been passed. It is true that the accused revisionist has been summoned under Section 376 IPC, which was not prosecution case initially, but that is improvement upon the prosecution version by the victim subsequently, but that aspect can also be seen by the trial court after evidence has been recorded and witnesses have been cross-examined. It is also apparent from the impugned order that after relying upon the law laid down in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 2 SCC 92 this impugned order has been passed. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order at this stage. Accordingly, the said order is upheld.
The revision is dismissed.
However, if the accused revisionist appears before the Trial Court within thirty days and seeks bail, the same would be decided in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days no coercive action shall be taken against him, but if he does not appear within the said time period, the Court shall procure his attendance through coercive steps.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 LBY