MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) BY means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant Ram Bharosey who is complainant in S.T.No.119 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.756 of 2011 under Sections 376, 342, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, relating to Police Station Behtagokul, District Hardoi, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, has assailed the order dated 11.10.2013 passed on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereby the aforesaid application has been rejected.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the First Information Report lodged by him, he had named the opposite party no.2 also along with other accused persons, but the Investigating Officer during investigation submitted charge -sheet only against two accused persons and gave clean -chit to the opposite party no.2 while as a matter of fact, there was sufficient evidence against him to the effect that he along with other accused persons also committed rape of the prosecutrix. During trial after the statement of two prosecution witnesses including the informant and the prosecutrix were recorded, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the prosecution to summon the opposite party no.2 on the ground that from the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, there was sufficient material to summon the opposite party no.2 and also convict him for the offence. This application has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that there does not exist sufficient ground to summon the opposite party no.2.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 was named in the First Information Report and in the statement recorded before the trial court the prosecutrix has clearly named the opposite party no.2 and has made allegation of rape against him also. The minor contradictions in the statement of the informant and the posecutrix were not of so much importance that on the basis of those contradictions their testimony could be doubted. The learned trial court has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only for the reason that there were contractions in the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation and given during trial. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge of rape is a very serious offence and the court should not spare the actual culprits if from the evidence on record it is established that they were also involved in the commission of rape.;