Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3141 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ishwar Bhati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard the argument of Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for revisionist and Shri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. - I, Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trial No. 722 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 688 of 2015, under Sections 376 and 454 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected with a further prayer that a direction be issued to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. - I, Gautam Budh Nagar to reconsider the discharge application. It is also prayed that the further proceedings of the aforesaid Session Trial be also stayed.
The learned counsel for revisionist has argued that the impugned order dated 01st of June, 2019 framing the charge has been wrongly passed by the learned Trial Court by which the application for discharge of the accused revisionist has been rejected, although he agreed to this position of law that the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. would be treated to be earlier statements which would be relevant only for contradiction of the evidence that would be recorded by the Trial Court during the trial proceedings.
Learned A.G.A. has vehmently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order.
I have gone through the impugned order. It is clearly mentioned in it that in the statement of victim given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there was evidence in support of the prosecution case, while in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has totally denied the prosecution version. The Trial Court has framed the charges against accused revisionist under Sections 376 and 452 IPC. Since for framing of the charge, it is not necessary that there must be cogent evidence; even if doubt arises in the mind of Court that there is evidence against accused constituting offence that too would be sufficient for framing charge and in this case, looking to the fact that in the First Information Report and in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecution version was supported by the victim, there was sufficient ground to frame charge against the revisionist; hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, this revision stands rejected.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 LBY