Chatrapal v. Devendra Gurjar and others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182854 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1639 of 2024 Revisionist :- Prakash And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Himanshu Mishra,Jai Shanker Audichya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 11.10.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mathura in Case No.690 of 2023 (Chatrapal vs. Devendra Gurjar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.213 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376-D, 120-B IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Raya, District Mathura. By the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the protest petition 13-Kha filed by the informant/defacto complainant and summoned accused Prakash and Robit to face trial for charge under Sections 376-D, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and accused Lokendra has been summoned under Sections 376-D, 506 IPC and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act and Section 66 of IT Act. 3. According to the prosecution version, the informant Chhatrapal
Legal Reasoning
lodged an FIR at police station concerned, on the basis of written report, which was scribed by one Monu Saraswat on 26.6.2023 with accusation that earlier his elder daughter was abducted by one Mahesh alias Kaluwa, son of Vishambhar, Prakash and Robit and he was compelled to depose in favour of them . On 24.6.2023, Mahesh alias Kaluwa was sent to jail by police. Accused Prakash and Robit became aggressive due to action taken against Mahesh and they used to threaten him continuously to take away his younger daughter also. His wife died six years earlier to the incident. On 25.6.2023, at around 7:45 PM his younger daughter aged around 13 years had gone to ease herself in an agricultural field, when she did not turn up at home after much delay, he went in search of her and found her in confused and distraught condition in the field of chari. She was crying and told him that Prakash, Lokendra and Robit had grabbed her mouth, dis-robbed her and Prakash and Robit committed rape on her. Lokendra was making video of the act done by the co-accused. They also threatened her to kill her brother if she shouted. They also threatened her to make her naked video viral. 4. The police investigated the case and exonerated all the three named accused persons relying upon CDR and CCTV recording. On the date of incident, according to the Investigating Officer, accused Prakash was found to have staying in a hotel on 25.6.2023 from 1:06 PM to 09:00 AM in Kullu Manali at Hotel Monarch Residency. This fact also came into light that the location of Prakash was in Bharatpur, Rajasthan on 26.6.2023 and the location of Robit on 25.6.2023 and 26.6.2023 was found in Aligarh. The location of accused Lokendra on 25.6.2023 was found in village Panigaon Bangar and Anauda. The Investigating Officer found contradictions in statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and came to conclusion that informant had lodged a false report with ulterior motive due to prior enmity with the accused persons. His elder daughter had gone with a co-villager Mahesh alias Kaluwa and accused Lokendra is real brother of Mahesh. The Investigating Officer filed a final report in favour of the accused persons. The informant filed a protest petition against final report and the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 11.10.2023 has accepted the protest petition and rejected the final report by the impugned order and summoned the accused persons to face trial. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Investigating Officer has initiated proceeding under Section 22 of POCSO Act against the informant for lodging false report before the court. He also submitted that the Dr. Sobhavati of District Hospital, before whom the victim was produced for medico legal examination, has stated in her statement before the Investigating Officer that the victim has refused to get herself internally examined. The Doctor has further stated that she was aged around 13 years and produced before her on 26.6.2023, however, on persuasion of the informant, internal examination was also done. Some nail marks were found on her breast. She has recorded that no injury marks were found on her genitals. Her lower and undergarments were sent for DNA testing. He further submitted that the accused persons are falsely implicated in the case due to enmity with Mahesh, who had contracted marriage with elder daughter of the informant and earlier and FIR was lodged by the informant vide Crime No.156 of 2023, Police Station Raya, District Mathura, under Section 364 IPC regarding abduction of his elder daughter by Mahesh and same was expunged. Even the elder daughter of the informant has filed affidavit in support of the accused persons during investigation before the police and has stated that the accused persons are family members of Mahesh and for that reason, they are falsely implicated by the father of the
Legal Reasoning
prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that in fact no such incident had occurred as alleged in present case. There are apparent contradictions in the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. There is also contradiction in ocular testimony and medical evidence. The allegations made in the FIR against the revisionists do not inspire confidence. There is no corroborative evidence in support of the FIR version whereas there is ample material on record which suggests false implication of the revisionist in the case. The initiation of proceeding against the revisionist is abuse of process of law. 6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that the Investigating Officer has wrongly submitted final report in favour of the revisionist by ignoring the clinching material and evidence in support of the FIR version. The medico legal examination of the victim itself suggests that she was sexually assaulted on the date of incident. The Investigating Officer has wrongly filed final report in favour of the revisionists after finding their presence elsewhere on the basis of some extraneous evidence. The victim, who is minor girl aged around 13 years, has supported the FIR version in her statement under Section 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and there is no occasion to disbelieve her testimony. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 lastly submitted that coercive process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. and NBW has been issued against the revisionists but still they are at large. her date of birth is recorded as 1.1.2012 in her T.C. of Class V as per statement of Principal of the School where she studied upto Class V. 7. On a perusal of record, it appears that the main role has been assigned in FIR version and protest petition against accused Prakash and Robit. The victim has also stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Robit and Prakash had committed wrong act with her after she was dragged by the three accused namely, Robit, Prakash and Lokendra from agricultural field of chari where she had gone to ease herself in the night of 25.6.2023 at around 8:00 PM. When Robit and Prakash committed wrong act with her in the field of chari, Lokendra had made a video of the act and threatened her to make the video viral. In medical examination report also, external injury marks were found on her person, which fortifies the prosecution version to some extent in itself. The victim, who is aged around 13 years as per her school record on the date of incident has made specific allegations against accused persons in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and same cannot be disbelieved at this stage on the ground that the Investigating Officer found their presence at some other place on date and time of the incident on the basis of their mobile location. The plea of alibi, as a matter of principle, can be considered at the stage of adducing defence evidence whereas this is a stage of summoning of the accused. 8. The Investigating officer in the case submitted final report on the basis of mobile location as presence of the three accused, who are revisionists before this Court, was not found on the place of incident on the relevant date as mobile location of Prakash suggests his present at Kullu-Manali (Himanchal Pradesh). Mobile location of Robit suggests his presence at Aligarh and accused Lokendra was found in the village while unloading trolley having manure of cow dung in the field of Vikesh @ Madhuwa alongwith other laborers. The elder daughter of informant namely, Soniya has filed an affidavit in support of the accused persons that her father had falsely implicated the revisionists as she contracted marriage with Mahesh, who belongs to their family against consent of her father. In internal injury examination report, hymen of the victim was found torn although no injury mark was found on genital. The victim has given graphic account of the incident in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. recorded during investigation and her father corroborative evidence that he found the victim in the field in nude condition and he took her at home after covering her body by cloths. The protest petition filed by the father of the victim consists of relevant facts of the case which finds support from the statement of the victim and her father. Learned court below has summoned the accused persons on finding a, prima facie, case against them for summoning them to face trial for said
Decision
charges. The impugned order is well reasoned and passed within the purview of law with appreciation of material on record in proper perspective. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. The revision is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, present criminal revision stands dismissed. Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Kamarjahan