Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 378 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi

2022-03-14

SHAMIM AHMED

body2022
JUDGMENT : Shamim Ahmed, J. 1. List revised. 2. As per the office report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri vide its report dated 30.1.2020 informed that the opposite party No. 4-HC/Harish, S/o Lala Ram, has expired ten years back. 3. Heard Shri Abhishek Shukla, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 4. This revision has been filed on behalf of State challenging the order dated 26.11.2001 passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etah in S.S.T. No. 64 of 2001, State v. Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 481 of 2000, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, discharging the opposite parties from the charge under Sections 395, 397, 342, 376, 412, 506 I.P.C. 5. Learned A.G.A.-I submits that the informant-Km. Durga Bharti lodged an F.I.R. on 31.7.2000 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah which was registered as Case Crime No. 481 of 2000, under Sections 395, 397, 342, 376, 412, 506 I.P.C. with the allegation that on 31.7.2000 at about 6:00 p.m. she was going to Agra with one Jagatveer in Mahindra Jeep, when their vehicle reached at Bus stand at Agra Road, then three vehicles, i.e. Armada Grand Jeep, Gypsy and Commander Jeep belongs to Shishpul Yadav, M.L.A. intercepted the vehicle of informant and from these vehicles Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi having rifle in his hand, Inspector Harishchandra, Inspector Ram Prakash, Ganesh Lodhi, who were in security of Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi, having rifles and AK-47 in their hands, came out and dragged away the informant from her vehicle and Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi by abusing and assaulting the informant put his rifle on her chest and taken her to Armada Grand Jeep and, thereafter, taken her to his Ashram at Shikohabad. The accused persons also snatched her bag containing Rs. 12,000/- revolver and papers of vehicle belongings to the informant. The informant was raped by Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi, Padam Singh and Ram Singh several times in the Ashram of Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakshi. After investigation the police has submitted its charge-sheet against all the accused persons, the opposite parties herein. The accused opposite parties filed an application No. 51-A with the prayer that they may be discharged from the charge framed against them as no case is made out against them. 6. After investigation the police has submitted its charge-sheet against all the accused persons, the opposite parties herein. The accused opposite parties filed an application No. 51-A with the prayer that they may be discharged from the charge framed against them as no case is made out against them. 6. Learned A.G.A.-I further submits that on the aforesaid application moved on behalf of accused opposite parties, the learned trial Court after hearing D.G.C. (Criminal) and the learned counsel for the accused opposite parties, has discharged the accused opposite parties by passing the impugned order, which is under challenge before this Court in the present revision. 7. Learned A.G.A.-I further submits that while passing the impugned order the learned trial Court has committed error by not considering the evidence adduced by the victim. The learned trial Court has also committed error of law by not considering the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. 8. After considering the arguments advanced by Shri Abhishek Shukla, the learned A.G.A.-I on behalf of State, and after having gone through the impugned order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the trial Court and also after perusal of record of the Court below, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court in its judgment has observed that during investigation there was no evidence found regarding robbery of vehicle, bag, revolver, twelve thousand rupees and papers of vehicle of the informant. Regarding loot of vehicle on the date of incident as alleged by the prosecution, the learned trial Court found that the informant could not produce papers of the vehicle relating to its ownership and in inquiry it was found that the same was belonged to one Vijay Swaroop, who produced the papers of the vehicle claiming its ownership and was handed over to him. The loot of revolver, of which the informant was claiming its ownership, was also not found her during investigation. 9. The learned trial Court further gave finding that regarding allegation of assault and rape made by the informant allegedly committed by the accused persons on 31.7.2000, the informant was medically examined on 1.8.2000 and the concerned doctor has opined that there was no external or internal injury found on the person of the informant or on her private parts. 9. The learned trial Court further gave finding that regarding allegation of assault and rape made by the informant allegedly committed by the accused persons on 31.7.2000, the informant was medically examined on 1.8.2000 and the concerned doctor has opined that there was no external or internal injury found on the person of the informant or on her private parts. The witnesses of the alleged kidnapping, who were produced by the police as eye-witnesses, have not named the accused opposite parties. 10. The learned trial Court further recorded finding that from the perusal of record there is no evidence of kidnapping, loot or rape found against the accused persons, consequently the accused persons were discharged from the allegation made against them by the trial Court and a reasoned and speaking order was passed after considering the material available on record. 11. In view of above, there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the trial Court, therefore, the order under challenge needs no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for its onwards transmission to the concerned Court. Let the lower Court record, if any, be returned back to the Court concerned. The file is consigned to record.