- (1.) This revision under Section 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 816 of 2009, State v. Raghvendra and Ors., under Section 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Dibai, District-Bulandshahar, whereby the application 102-A under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the revisionist Raghvendra Singh @ Babua was dismissed.
(2.) Heard Sri C.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
(3.) Revisionist is one of the accused in the aforesaid session trial. The allegations against him are kidnapping and rape of the prosecutrix (daughter of the complainant Roshan Singh). The incident took place on 6.2.2009 at 6 a.m. It was alleged that the revisionist took away the prosecutrix from the house of the complaint with the promise of marriage. The prosecutrix was recovered after four days on 10.2.2009. During trial, the prosecutrix was examined as P.W.-2 on 8.12.2009 and was cross-examined by the defence. On 23.8.2010, an application was moved by the prosecutrix before learned Sessions Judge stating therein that a false report regarding her kidnapping was lodged. She was not kidnapped by any person nor raped against her own will. Her father and maternal grand-father pressurized her to give false statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and they wanted her to marry with a boy, who was not to her liking. She is repentant and wants to correct the mistake committed by her and therefore her statement be recorded again. Affidavit of the prosecutrix was also filed in support of the said application. Again an application was moved by the prosecutrix on 26.8.2010 stating therein that she wanted to testify again, as her father and maternal grand-father are pressurizing her to recall her application dated 23.8.2010. She further stated that her father and maternal grand-father might murder her by way of honour killing and therefore she be protected and her statement be recorded that very day. This application was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 26.8.2010 on the ground that the prosecutor was not summoned by the Court to appear as a witness and she had come to the Court alongwith her father. She had already been examined as P.W.-2. There was no occasion to re-examine her or to provide any security.;