- (1.) Challenging its legality and correctness, the revisionists have prayed to set aside the order dated 9.5.2013 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 02 of 2015 ( State Vs. Umashankar) arising out of Case Crime No. 490 of 2015 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 11/12 POCSO Act, P.S. Jahanabad, district Pilibhit on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections.? Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are innocent and they have wrongly been summoned by learned trial court on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; the police after completion of investigation had not submitted charge-sheet against them however, the court below, after allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionists without considering the fact that there is no evidence on record to implicate them in the aforesaid offence. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the victim recorded during trial before the court in which she has not uttered even a single word against the revisionists about the commission of rape on her or about any such fact on the basis of which Sections 11 and 12 of POCSO Act could have been made out against them. Learned counsel has further submitted that with malafide intention to unnecessarily harass the revisionists, who all are real brothers and father of main accused Uma Shankar, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has involved them in the aforesaid offence. The contention of learned counsel is that the learned trial court while treating all the accused alike, has wrongly summoned all of them without considering the fact that their roles are entirely different from the main accused Uma Shankar. It is further contended that the radiological age of the prosecutrix has been found to be between 17 to 19 years as has been stated by P.W. 4 Dr. Smt. Santosh Rana. There is no iota of evidence against the revisionist that they committed any of the acts coming within the purview of Sections 11 and 12 of POCSO Act. Hence the summoning of the revisionists under aforesaid sections appears to be without any basis and against the law.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision but he failed to point out any relevant material showing the involvement of the revisionists in the offences under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Sections 11 and 12 of POCSO Act. Considered the submissions;