State of U.P. and Others vs Party(s)

proceedings of S.T. No.26 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.254 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Paraspur, District Gond and the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gonda.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not named in the FIR and even in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also, the applicants have not been named. The prosecutrix has not stated anywhere that applicants were involved in commission of crime. He further submits that after investigation, charge sheet was filed only against the co-accused. It is submitted that on the basis of the statements of P.W.-1, father of the prosecutrix, and P.W.-2, victim, the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel further submits that the trial court has committed error by not considering the fact that charge sheet was not filed against the applicants and the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have also not been considered by it and without considering the aforesaid documents, the applicants have been summoned in pursuance of the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the statements given by P.Ws.1 and 2. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgement of this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.657 of 2021, Vishwapal Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 29.08.2023. 2 A482 No. 6431 of 2018

3. On the other hand, Sri Anshuman Verma, learned AGA has submitted that P.W.-1 father of the victim, has deposed before the court that both the applicants were involved in the commission of crime. Applicant no.1 is the lady, who supported the co-accused while the girl was enticed away by the co-accused. He has further submitted that after going through the statement of P.W.-2, it is abundantly clear that she has levelled specific allegation against both the applicants. It is also submitted that statement of the victim is sufficient to convict the applicants.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. After going through the record as well as the submissions of the rival parties, I find that the victim has deposed before the court by levelling specific allegation against both the applicants that they took her on motorcycle on the assurance of providing her medicine, but instead of providing the medicine, both the applicants took her to the house of co- accused Ram Kumar and applicant no.2, Rafeeq Khan gave some sweet (Laddu) to her and as soon as she consumed the Laddu, she became unconscious. Later on, when she gained consciousness, she came to know that she was in the house of co-accused Ram Kumar and she informed her father that applicant-Rafeeq Khan took her to the house of co-accused Ram Kumar. On seeing this, Ram Kumar and Keshav Ram snatched the mobile phone of the victim and took her to Lucknow and thereafter Keshav Ram, Ram Kumar and Rafeeq Khan committed rape on her. For ready reference, statement of the victim P.W.-2 is quoted below:- “कु ० पूजा उ(cid:356) 17 साल पु(cid:347)ी रामचरन िनवासी (cid:334)ाम धनौरा, थाना परसपुर, िजला-गो(cid:276)डा ने सशपथ बयान की िक घटना िदनाँक 28- 11-2013 म(cid:517) िदन के करीब 2:00 बजे की है उस िदन मेरे कान म(cid:517) दज(cid:259) हो रहा था और सोनी के घर िसलाई िसखने जाती थी म(cid:520)ने कहा ँ गी तो सोनी ने कहा (cid:262)य(cid:523) मैने कहा कान म(cid:517) दद(cid:259) हो रहा है दवा लेने जा रही (cid:632)ँ। इस पर सोनी ने कहा िक िक आज िसलाई नही िसकू चलो म(cid:517) दबा िदलवा दे रही (cid:632)ँ इस पर म(cid:520) सोनी पर िव(cid:502)ास करके उसके साथ चल दी। रा(cid:293)ते म(cid:517) सोनी के चाचा रफीक िमल गये और गाँव के है उ(cid:281)ह(cid:523)ने सोनी से कहा िक कहा जा रही हो तो सोनी ने कहा िक दवा िदलाने व सूई धागा लेने जा रही (cid:632)ँ। इसके बाद के शवराम , इशरत अली, राम कु मार और रफीक दो बाइक से आये और कहे िक हम दवा िदलवा देते है इस पर िव(cid:502)ास करके म(cid:520) और सोनी रफीक की बाइक पर बैठ गयी लेिकन रफीक दवा कराने नही ले गये बि(cid:289)क अपने घर ले गये म(cid:520)ने कहा िक मेरी दवा तो उ(cid:281)ह(cid:523)ने कहा िक सुबह से खाली पेट हो कु छ खा लो तो दवा देते है उसके बाद रफीक ने एक ल(cid:480)ू िदया और खाली म(cid:517) खाली तभी खाते ही च(cid:262)कर आ गया और पता नह(cid:514) चला की म(cid:520) कहा पर (cid:632)ँ। होश आने पर म(cid:520)ने अपने को रामकु मार के घर पर पाया। िफर म(cid:520) रोने लगी थी यहाँ (cid:262)य(cid:523) लाये तो चारो आदमी मुझे डाटने लगे रात म(cid:517) कोिशश करके म(cid:520)ने अपने पापा को फोन िकया और कही की पापा रफीक ने मुझे राम कु मार के घर पर ला िदया है िफर राम कु मार और के शव ने मेरा फोन छीन िलया और अपने फू फा के पास लेकर चले गये। बैरागीपुरवा के राम कु मार के फू फा अशफ(cid:597) का घर है। िफर सुबह मेरे पापा भाई और गाँव के दो चार लोग राम कु मार के घर गये और वहाँ न िमलने पर उनके फू फा के घर गये लेिकन तब तक मुझे अशफ(cid:597), के शवराम, राम कु मार और रफीक मुझे लेकर लखनऊ ले गये लेिकन मुझे यह नही मालूम की लखनऊ िकस जगह रखे। 3 A482 No. 6431 of 2018 लखनऊ म(cid:517) मेरे साथ के शवराम, राम कु मार और रफीक ने बला(cid:277)कार िकया था। उस समय मेरी उ(cid:356) 16 वष(cid:259) की थी अशफ(cid:597) के गाँव वालो ने दबाव डाला था ल(cid:237)की को बुला लाओ नही तो तु(cid:286)हारा घर फू क देगे िफर घटना के एक हफते बाद पुिलस ने मुझे बरामद िकया।"

6. The law is settled that statement of the victim is sufficient to convict the accused. This Court cannot give a finding whether the offence was committed by the applicants or not. The trial court has summoned the applicants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after going through the record as well as the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order.

7. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. Order on I.A. No.7 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application seeks recall of the order dated 30.10.2025. Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the application are sufficient. Application is accordingly allowed and the order dated 30.10.2025 is recalled. December 8, 2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

proceedings of S.T. No.26 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.254 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Paraspur, District Gond and the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gonda.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not named in the FIR and even in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also, the applicants have not been named. The prosecutrix has not stated anywhere that applicants were involved in commission of crime. He further submits that after investigation, charge sheet was filed only against the co-accused. It is submitted that on the basis of the statements of P.W.-1, father of the prosecutrix, and P.W.-2, victim, the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel further submits that the trial court has committed error by not considering the fact that charge sheet was not filed against the applicants and the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have also not been considered by it and without considering the aforesaid documents, the applicants have been summoned in pursuance of the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the statements given by P.Ws.1 and 2. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgement of this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.657 of 2021, Vishwapal Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 29.08.2023. 2 A482 No. 6431 of 2018

3. On the other hand, Sri Anshuman Verma, learned AGA has submitted that P.W.-1 father of the victim, has deposed before the court that both the applicants were involved in the commission of crime. Applicant no.1 is the lady, who supported the co-accused while the girl was enticed away by the co-accused. He has further submitted that after going through the statement of P.W.-2, it is abundantly clear that she has levelled specific allegation against both the applicants. It is also submitted that statement of the victim is sufficient to convict the applicants.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. After going through the record as well as the submissions of the rival parties, I find that the victim has deposed before the court by levelling specific allegation against both the applicants that they took her on motorcycle on the assurance of providing her medicine, but instead of providing the medicine, both the applicants took her to the house of co- accused Ram Kumar and applicant no.2, Rafeeq Khan gave some sweet (Laddu) to her and as soon as she consumed the Laddu, she became unconscious. Later on, when she gained consciousness, she came to know that she was in the house of co-accused Ram Kumar and she informed her father that applicant-Rafeeq Khan took her to the house of co-accused Ram Kumar. On seeing this, Ram Kumar and Keshav Ram snatched the mobile phone of the victim and took her to Lucknow and thereafter Keshav Ram, Ram Kumar and Rafeeq Khan committed rape on her. For ready reference, statement of the victim P.W.-2 is quoted below:- “कु ० पूजा उ(cid:356) 17 साल पु(cid:347)ी रामचरन िनवासी (cid:334)ाम धनौरा, थाना परसपुर, िजला-गो(cid:276)डा ने सशपथ बयान की िक घटना िदनाँक 28- 11-2013 म(cid:517) िदन के करीब 2:00 बजे की है उस िदन मेरे कान म(cid:517) दज(cid:259) हो रहा था और सोनी के घर िसलाई िसखने जाती थी म(cid:520)ने कहा ँ गी तो सोनी ने कहा (cid:262)य(cid:523) मैने कहा कान म(cid:517) दद(cid:259) हो रहा है दवा लेने जा रही (cid:632)ँ। इस पर सोनी ने कहा िक िक आज िसलाई नही िसकू चलो म(cid:517) दबा िदलवा दे रही (cid:632)ँ इस पर म(cid:520) सोनी पर िव(cid:502)ास करके उसके साथ चल दी। रा(cid:293)ते म(cid:517) सोनी के चाचा रफीक िमल गये और गाँव के है उ(cid:281)ह(cid:523)ने सोनी से कहा िक कहा जा रही हो तो सोनी ने कहा िक दवा िदलाने व सूई धागा लेने जा रही (cid:632)ँ। इसके बाद के शवराम , इशरत अली, राम कु मार और रफीक दो बाइक से आये और कहे िक हम दवा िदलवा देते है इस पर िव(cid:502)ास करके म(cid:520) और सोनी रफीक की बाइक पर बैठ गयी लेिकन रफीक दवा कराने नही ले गये बि(cid:289)क अपने घर ले गये म(cid:520)ने कहा िक मेरी दवा तो उ(cid:281)ह(cid:523)ने कहा िक सुबह से खाली पेट हो कु छ खा लो तो दवा देते है उसके बाद रफीक ने एक ल(cid:480)ू िदया और खाली म(cid:517) खाली तभी खाते ही च(cid:262)कर आ गया और पता नह(cid:514) चला की म(cid:520) कहा पर (cid:632)ँ। होश आने पर म(cid:520)ने अपने को रामकु मार के घर पर पाया। िफर म(cid:520) रोने लगी थी यहाँ (cid:262)य(cid:523) लाये तो चारो आदमी मुझे डाटने लगे रात म(cid:517) कोिशश करके म(cid:520)ने अपने पापा को फोन िकया और कही की पापा रफीक ने मुझे राम कु मार के घर पर ला िदया है िफर राम कु मार और के शव ने मेरा फोन छीन िलया और अपने फू फा के पास लेकर चले गये। बैरागीपुरवा के राम कु मार के फू फा अशफ(cid:597) का घर है। िफर सुबह मेरे पापा भाई और गाँव के दो चार लोग राम कु मार के घर गये और वहाँ न िमलने पर उनके फू फा के घर गये लेिकन तब तक मुझे अशफ(cid:597), के शवराम, राम कु मार और रफीक मुझे लेकर लखनऊ ले गये लेिकन मुझे यह नही मालूम की लखनऊ िकस जगह रखे। 3 A482 No. 6431 of 2018 लखनऊ म(cid:517) मेरे साथ के शवराम, राम कु मार और रफीक ने बला(cid:277)कार िकया था। उस समय मेरी उ(cid:356) 16 वष(cid:259) की थी अशफ(cid:597) के गाँव वालो ने दबाव डाला था ल(cid:237)की को बुला लाओ नही तो तु(cid:286)हारा घर फू क देगे िफर घटना के एक हफते बाद पुिलस ने मुझे बरामद िकया।"

6. The law is settled that statement of the victim is sufficient to convict the accused. This Court cannot give a finding whether the offence was committed by the applicants or not. The trial court has summoned the applicants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after going through the record as well as the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order.

7. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. Order on I.A. No.7 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application seeks recall of the order dated 30.10.2025. Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the application are sufficient. Application is accordingly allowed and the order dated 30.10.2025 is recalled. December 8, 2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench