AMIT CHAUHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Amit Chauhan And Others
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Accused petitioners, herein, have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the FIR of case crime no. 41 of 2013, police station Kankhal, District Haridwar, consequential, charge-sheet no. 40/13 under Section 376 (G), 323, 506 IPC and consequential cognizance / summoning order dated 19.06.2013.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners while taking me to the contents of FIR and statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vehemently argued that neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. any allegation of rape was made and the only allegation made was about attempt to rape. She further contends that even medical report does not support the allegation of rape. Prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she was made to drink alcohol and thereafter, she was raped by all the accused persons / petitioners turn by turn.
(3.) Mr. K. S. Rautela, learned AGA for the State argued that statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be incorrect, at this stage. Prosecutrix, while appearing in the witness box, may state that as to what statement she had actually made before the police and she can also state that in fact, she made allegation of rape, however, police did not record the same.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.