A Criminal Revision against an order in a rape case was dismissed due to unexplained delay and lack of appearance by the revisionist, who failed to prove grounds for condonation of delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1081 of 2016
Revisionist :- Satya Narain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
(C.M.A No. 109138 of 2016: Application for condonation of delay)
Matter is taken up. No one has put in appearance on behalf of
the revisionist to press this revision. Learned A.G.A for the State is present.
The instant revision is preferred against the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by Additional District Judge/ FTC, Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2013 under Section 363, 366, 368 IPC along with an application for condonation of delay.
The cause shown for the delay in filing the revision is that after getting information about the order the revisionist was busy in arranging fund to file the revision meanwhile he also get seriously ill, therefore the revision could not be filed within time.
A perusal of the records goes to show that nothing has been brought on record to support the aforesaid plea. Moreover, it further transpires from the record that the revisionist was directed to take steps for service upon opposite party No.3, however, as per office report no step has been taken till date.
Further a perusal of the record shows that the ground taken for filing this revision is that the victim and revisionist were in intimate relationship and the victim eloped with the revisionist after attaining the age of 18 years. Both got married and are living as husband and wife, further no allegation of rape has been levelled against the present revisionist in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C or in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Be that as it may, since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the revisionst and nothing has been brought on record to support the plea taken for condonation of delay.
The delay condonation application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
(Criminal Revision)
Since delay condonation application has been rejected, the revision also stands rejected.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court, Lakhimur Kheri along with record, if any available, for necessary information and compliance.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 21.7.2023 Nadeem
Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Satya Narain
State of U.P.
Renu Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
