Indradev @ Chhotu Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Sonbhadra in Session Case No.595/2025 (State vs. Indradev @ Chhotu Vishwakarma) arising out of Case Crime No.50 of 2025, under Sections 352,351(2) 65(1), 62 B.N.S. 2023 & under Sections 3/4(2) read with Section 18 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)v of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra whereby the application of the revisionist u/s 262(2) B.N.S.S. has been rejected by the learned trial court.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist has falsely been implicated for making an attempt to commit rape with the victim said to be aged about 14 years though she was major at the time of alleged incident. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of one and a half months without any explanation. Further submitted that she also lodged another case against the present revisionist falsely in which after trial he was acquitted and in that case she told her age to be major but learned trial court did not consider this fact. Further submitted that in the statements of the victim u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. recorded before the I.O. and learned Magistrate, there are contradictions which make the statements of the victim unreliable. Learned trial court has also not considered these contradictions but passed the order dated 07.02.2026 and dismissed the

¶14

CRLR No. 2738 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

application for discharge.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case there is allegation of an attempt to commit rape against the revisionist by the informant. When her statement u/s 180 B.N.S.S. was recorded by the I.O. she supported the allegation as made in F.I.R. and when her statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate u/s 183 B.N.S.S. she again reiterated her statement and asserted the allegation of an attempt to commit rape by the revisionist with her. Since medical examination was done after gap that was the reason no any such injury was found on her person but on her face, arms and left knee small old scratches were found to be present. Learned court concerned has passed the order in question after taking into consideration the material collected by the I.O. The statement of the victim and another witness in other case cannot be admitted at this stage in defence but such material can be admissible at the stage of defence after conclusion of prosecution evidence. At this stage, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be material. The revisionist has not raised any question regarding the age of the victim before the learned trial court, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that she is major or more than 14 years.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents of F.I.R., the statement of the victim as recorded by the I.O. u/s 180 B.N.S.S. and under Section 183 B.N.S.S. by the learned Magistrate, it transpires that there is allegation of making an attempt to commit rape with the victim said to be aged about 14 years in field when she went to graze her goats. She has supported her allegation in F.I.R. when her statements was recorded u/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. before the I.O. as well as the learned Magistrate also. At the stage of framing of charge the learned court is expected to make scrutiny of the material collected during the course of investigation by the I.O. with a view to find out of prima facie case and not to make scrutiny of such material as during trial. The material of some other case can only be admitted at the stage of defence on the part of the revisionist/accused but at the stage of framing of charge no such material can be accepted. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court dated 07.02.2026 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶20

May 5, 2026 Ashok Gupta

¶21

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indradev @ Chhotu Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indradev @ Chhotu Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustakeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Tej Narayan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Viri Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Pooja Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others