Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18852 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramkali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Ram Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Applicant has filed this application under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 646 of 2014 (State vs. Ramesh and others), arising out of case crime no. 638 of 2013, under section 376(d) I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Moradabad.
Facts giving rise to application in brief are that applicant had lodged an F.I.R. against Survesh, Ramesh and Rajesh with allegations that they caught her from behind on 07.10.2013 in jungle while she was cutting grass and sexually assaulted her. In the F.I.R. after investigation a charge-sheet was submitted and above mentioned accused are facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge /F.T.C.-Ist, Moradabad.
The prosecution evidence in the Sessions trial has been completed and the case is at the stage of arguments. At this Stage, on 14.12.2017 applicant who is victim also moved an application supported with her affidavit that she wants to tell truth in the court by re-examining her, she be allowed for the same. She had stated that she has given statement in court against accused persons in fear and pressure of police, accused who are the family members are innocent, they did not sexually assault her. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist on 15.03.2018 holding, once applicant after being examined three years ago on 09.09.2014 and having supported the prosecution, she cannot be allowed to be re-examined for resiling from her earlier statement. Aggrieved by the same, this application has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist Moradabad rejecting applicants' application for cross- examination is bad in law. His submission is that earlier statement of the applicant in which she has supported the prosecution is not the true statement of the applicant. He has further submitted that applicant does not want that accused who are innocent be punished for an offence which they never committed.
He has thus submitted, if applicant wanted to tell truth in the court by re-examining her and she had made an application in this regard, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have allowed the same.
In reply, the learned AGA has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist has committed no illegality in rejecting the application. His submission is that it is incorrect on the part of applicant to say that she has given her earlier statement under fear and pressure of police and now she wants to tell the truth. His further submission is that on account of compromise arrived at between applicant and accused persons, applicant has made the application so that she may resile from her earlier statement.
It is being wrongly said by the applicant in her earlier statement given in court 3 years ago was given under fear and pressure of the police. It is material to mention here that alleged incident had allegedly taken place on 07.10.2013 in respect of which applicant has been examined in court on 09.09.2014, i.e. after 11 months of the occurrence. There is force in the contention of learned AGA that applicant had not made the application for re- examination with any bona fide intention, it was the out come of compromise arrived at between her and the accused persons in an offence which is not only grave but not compounding also. A witness cannot be permitted to be re-examined for altering to allow him /her from the earlier statement. The application being based on malafide, it has been rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, needs no interference in the present application.
In view of above, application has no merit and is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Bhanu