Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024/17/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the order rejecting a motion for discharge. The High Court rejected the application noting the trial was ongoing, no formal hostility record for the victim's statement, and discrepancies could be addressed after evidence conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The application praying for quashing of the impugned order was rejected.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1196

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17 of 2024 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

By means of an instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has assailed validity of an order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge, POCSO Act, Raebareli in Criminal Case No. 626/2018, rejecting an application filed by the applicant for being discharged.

¶7

The applicant had filed the application under Section 228 Cr.P.C on 10.08.2023 stating that at the time of framing of charge, a plea was raised on behalf of the applicant that the statement of the victim was not recorded by the investigating officer or the Magistrate and her medico legal examination was also not conducted. The incident took place on 17.03.2018. The victim fell ill on 07.06.2018, she was admitted to the district hospital where she died on 08.06.2018. The applicant contended that in absence of medico legal examination of the victim, the charge under section 376 Cr.P.C could not be proved and the applicant should be discharged and, therefore, the applicant should be discharged of Section 376 I.P.C.

¶8

While rejecting this application, the learned trial court held in the order dated 10.11.2023 that the same plea was raised by the

¶9

applicant at the stage of framing of charge, which plea has been rejected and a charge was framed under Section 376 I.P.C also, besides the offence under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.

¶10

At this stage, the trial court could only see whether a prima facie case exists for supporting the charge against the applicant and whether the charge could be established or not, can only be decided after conclusion of the trial. Statement of P.W.1 has already been recorded and cross examination of P.W.2 was going on for the aforesaid reason, the trial court rejected the application.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant- P.W.1 has turned hostile. However, a copy of the statement of the P.W.1 annexed with the affidavit indicates that the witness has not been declared to be hostile.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that there are serious discrepancies in the statement given by the P.W. 1 in her examination-in-chief and her statement in the cross-examination. The discrepancies in the statement of a witness do not given rise to a ground for an accused being discharged without conclusion of the trial. The discrepancies in evidence can be highlighted by the applicant during submissions after conclusion of the entire evidence.

¶13

When the examination of the witness is still going on, this court finds no illegality in the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application, the application lacks merits and the same is accordingly rejected.

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 5.1.2024

¶16

Preeti.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others