Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

iii- Case Crime No.286 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi.
With regard to Case Crime No.286 of 2018, rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties are as under:-
a- Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that in the said case, final report dated 14.06.2019 was submitted by the Police. Thereafter, victim filed a protest application dated 18.02.2019 against the said final report, which was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2021 and after rejecting the final report dated 14.06.2019, appellant has been summoned under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. to face trial.
b- In reply, Mr. Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact no such protest application was filed by the victim in aforesaid Case Crime No.286 of 2018 but the same was managed and got filed by Harimohan Yadav engaging a counsel, who impersonating himself to be a counsel for victim contested the final report dated 14.06.2019. As soon as, victim of that case came to know about the order dated 11.01.2021, she has moved an application dated 24.08.2021 before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaushambi mentioning that she has not filed any protest application against the final report submitted in favour of Azmal Shah (appellant). She has further mentioned that one Hari Mohan Yadav, who is having enmity with Azmal Shah, in order to falsely implicate him, got a protest application filed on her behalf engaging a counsel, whereas she has not engaged any counsel and the application dated 24.08.2021 is pending before the Court.
c- In order to know the correct fact regarding application dated 24.08.2021 filed in Case Crime No.286 of 2018, report was called from the concerned presiding officer vide order dated 12.04.2022 of this Court. In compliance thereof, District Judge, Kaushambi has submitted his report dated 04.05.2022 to this Court mentioning that victim was summoned by the concerned Court below and her statement was recorded on 02.05.2022, in which she has stated inter alia that she has not filed protest application dated 24.08.2022 against the final report and does not want any further proceeding against the accused-appellant.
6- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts of this case, prima-facie it is apparent that there is enmity between the appellant Azmal Shah and Hari Mohan Yadav who is named accused in F.I.R. Though the allegations of rape, etc. are heinous in nature but under the facts of the case, the act and conduct of the victim are also suspicious because she is major and married lady, hence she is capable to understand the things. She in her statement under Section 164 CrPC has stated inter alia that she has lodged F.I.R. of this case on the pressure of Azmal Shah and Lavlesh who have forced her under the threat of life to lodge a false case against her uncle Santosh Pasi, Harimohan Yadav and Hariyale by luring her with Rupees Ten lakh and a house, whereas she does not know Harimohan Yadav and Hariyale. The statement of victim shows that F.I.R. was not lodged behind her back by some other person but she consciously lodged F.I.R. knowing that contents of F.I.R. are false, therefore, at this stage under the facts of the case, her statement cannot be treated as gospel truth. Under the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be ascertain at this stage that as to which stand/allegation of the victim is correct, which can only be elicited and properly adjudicated after leading evidence before the trial Court. This Court is conscious that statement of victim is a primary consideration but under the law there is no presumption against the accused. Each case depends on its own facts. It cannot be said that in all the cases, victim shall always narrate the prosecution case truthfully. From the report dated 12.04.2022 of concerned Court below based on statement dated 02.05.2022 of victim as noted in preceding para no.4 (iii)(c), prima facie false implication of the appellant and filing of forged protest application by manipulation on behalf of victim behind her back in Case Crime No.286 of 2018 is apparent on record. Here it would also be relevant to mention that considering the facts mentioned in both the above Writ Petitions Nos.546 of 2021 and 4735 of 2021 filed by the victim as noted above, I find that the allegations levelled by her do not inspire confidence as she has also not come with clean hand before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant during his argument also pointed out that In-charge Inspector of Police Station-Karari, District Kaushambi has wrongly shown criminal history of two other cases being Case Crime No. 59 of 2020, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and 280 of 2018, under Section 354A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act both registered at police station-Karari, district Kaushambi while appellant has no concern with the said cases. Explanation was called in this regard. Thereafter, Subhash Kumar Yadav, In-charge Inspector of police station-Karari, district Kaushambi filed his personal affidavit dated 02.08.2022 tendering apology mentioning that same has been wrongly shown in the list of criminal history of the appellant on the basis of DCRB report. Since victim during investigation in her statements under Section 161 and 164 CrPC has not supported her own version as mentioned in the F.I.R and has narrated entirely different story implicating four new persons, namely, Azmal Shah (appellant), Lavlesh, Golu and Birahi in place of named accused Santosh Pasi, Harimohan Yadav and Hariyale, therefore, possibility of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. It is also well settled that benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused. Further details relating to the incident need not to be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in the trial Court.