Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the summoning order dated 04.10.2019 and the bailable warrant dated 15.11.2019, are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidences, which were available on record. He submits that after lodging of the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer, when found no cogent piece of evidence to substantiate the incident, submitted the Final Report and after delay of 20 months, the protest application of the appellant has been accepted.

5. Further submission is that as per the medical examination of the prosecutrix, there is no evidence of rape and that also does not support the version of the prosecutrix. He added that no proper reasons have been recorded while accepting the protest application and the same is based on conjecture and surmises.

6. Adding his arguments, he submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and evidences that the appellant was working as Lecturer in a Government-Aided College, namely, Shri Deshraj Narang Dayanand Inter College, Govind Nagar, Walterganj, District Basti and on the date and time of the said incident, he was on duty and furthermore, there is a clear cut evidence emerging out from the statement of the prosecutrix, that the First Information Report was lodged by the prosecutrix as a counter blast to the First Information Report lodged by one Akash Kumar Verma, the informant in the FIR No. 456 of 2017, against Digvijay Verma and Himanshu Verma under Sections 376, 516, 506 of IPC and the prosecutrix was used as an instrument by Digvijay Verma to pressurize the appellant, not to stick on the statement as witness and to turn hostile in Case Crime No. 456 of 2017.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the First Information Report has been lodged against the present appellant under Sections 376 D, 342, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and those are heinous in nature and badly impacts the society. He added that initially, after investigation, the Final Report was submitted but after filing of the protest application, the learned trial Court while recording detailed discussions and reasoning thereof, has passed the order on 04.10.2019. Further, from the statement of the prosecutrix, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is quite clear that the rape has been committed upon the complainant/prosecutrix by the present appellant and another co-accused and the medical examination report also supports the same..

28. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it emerges that initially the First Information Report was lodged against the present appellant, wherein, the Investigating Officer submitted Final Report and thereafter protest application was filed, which was entertained by the trial Court and after thoroughly considering the statement under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., of the prosecutrix and the other evidences on record, the order dated 04.10.2019 has been passed, whereby, the appellant has been summoned.