Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar ( In Adhar Pawan Kumar ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:58451
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7983 of 2025
Pawan Kumar ( In Adhar Pawan Kumar Goswami) And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rajesh Kumar Singh, Shesh Mani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh,, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K. Shahi, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
2. By means of the present application, the applicants have challenged the summoning order dated 11.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda (in short "trial Court") in Complaint Case No. 224/2023, Session Case No. 790/2025 (Bhagauti Prasad Vs. Pawan Kumar and Others) as also the proceedings in issue. The main prayer(s) sought in the instant application is extracted herein-under. "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to quashed the impugned summoning order dated 11.06.2025 under section 354, 1.P.C and 7/8 Pocso Act only application No. 1 and other accused person namely Vijay Kumar, Raju and Ramshankar u/s 323, 506 I.P.C in complain case No. 224/2023, now Session Case No. 790/2025, summoned by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge Pocso Act Gonda contained as Annexure No. 1 to this petition in the interest of justice.
And father prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of complain case No. 224/2023, now Session Case No. 790/2025, summoned by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge Pocso Act Gonda contained as Annexure No. 1 to this petition in the interest of justice."
3. Vide impugned order dated 11.06.2025, the trial Court has summoned the applicant no.1/Pawan Kumar to face trial under Section 354 of IPC and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "Act of 2012") and the applicants no. 2 to 4 namely Vijay Kumar, Raju and Ram Shanker to face trial under Sections 323, 506 of IPC.
4. In regard to the applicant no.1, the prayers have been sought on the plea of 'Alibi'. This plea is based upon the fact that at the time of incident, the applicant no.1 was at Domariyaganj, District - Siddharth Nagar along with his family.
5. It is to be noted that the plea of 'Alibi' is the plea of defence.
6. The Latin word 'Alibi' means 'elsewhere'. Plea of 'Alibi' is a rule of recognized in Section 11 of the Evidence Act. The plea of Alibi disputes the case of prosecution. Thus plea of 'Alibi' is question of fact. It is settled law that when an accused raises plea of 'Alibi', the burden is on accused to prove the same. A plea of 'Alibi' is a question of fact which is required to be proved by the accused at the stage of trial to show that he/ she was elsewhere and was falsely implicated and the accused is also required to prove the same by adducing appropriate evidence. Reference in this regard can be made to Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(1997) 1 SCC 283]; Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379]; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR 1984 SC 63; Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378; Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460 : 1956 Cri LJ 827]; Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [(1972) 4 SCC 140 : AIR 1972 SC 109]; State of Haryana v. Sher Singh [(1981) 2 SCC 300 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 421 : AIR 1981 SC 1021]; Shaikh Sattar v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 8 SCC 430]; Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 351 and G. N. Mishra And Another Vs. Smt. Divya Awasthi And Another, MANU/UP/1879/2012].
7. Accordingly, the plea of 'Alibi' taken by the applicant no. 1 for causing interference by this Court is hereby rejected.
8. Further for purposes of prayers sought, with regard to the applicant nos. 2 to 4 namely Vijay Kumar, Raju and Ram Shanker as also the applicant no. 1/Pawan Kumar, following two grounds have been pressed.
(i) It is a case of counter-blast for the reason that an FIR was lodged by Vijay Kumar S/o Ram Shanker Goswami (Applicant No. 2), on 03.09.2023, registered at Police Station - Kaudiya, District Gonda, as Case Crime No. 0293 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 323 IPC, making allegations therein against Bhagauti Prasad, Ram Sushil and wife of Bhagwati Prasad. According to this FIR, the named accused assaulted Vijay Kumar with kicks, fists, slaps, lathi and danda.
(a) It is to be noted that to support the aforesaid FIR, no medical evidence has been placed on record.
(ii) The prosecutrix/victim is not a truthful witness, as while making statement before the Magistrate, she took name of one Keshari, who had expired in the year 2007.
9. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present application. It is for the following reasons :-
(i) According to application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. preferred by Bhagwati Prasad, the Pawan Kumar (applicant no. 2) tried to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix/victim (daughter of the opposite party no. 2) and when the applicant no. 1 was opposed by the victim in loud voice, the applicant No. 2 to 4, namely Vijay Kumar, Raju (sons of Ram Shanker) and Ram Shanker S/o Keshari Prasad appeared at the place of alleged incident and threatened to life to the victim and also assaulted the prosecutrix/victim with kicks, fists and slaps.
(ii) From the copy of complaint on record, it is apparent that allegations have not been levelled against Keshari. The allegations have been levelled against Pawan Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Raju and Ram Shanker.
(iii) The victim in her own statement before the concerned Court, narrated the story as indicated in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. except naming Keshari, which could be slip of tongue or mistake in reducing the statement of victim in writing.
(iv) The statement of the victim is as good as the statement of an injured witness and the statement of such witness is to be considered unless, exceptional circumstances exist and that would be tested during trial.
10. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. Costs made easy.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) September 22, 2025 Mohit Singh/-