- (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Fatehpur in Special Trial No.25 of 2014 (State Vs. Saddam & others) arising out of Case Crime No.379 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 452 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur, District Fatehpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the revisionist under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for summoning opposite party nos.2 and 3 as an accused to face the trial, which is under challenge in this revision.
(2.) Facts, in brief, are that on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. an FIR was registered by the father of the victim-Km. Yasmin, who was alleged to be 11 years minor at the time of incident, stating that the victim was kidnapped by Saddam and one unknown person on 14.7.2013 from their house. The wife of the revisionist was also got injured by the accused persons when she tried to resist the accused. Police on the basis of the said application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. registered an FIR on 21.8.2013. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the learned trial court for summoning the accused, namely, Imran and Akhtar, but the trial court vide order dated 16.5.2015 impugned herein, rejected the said application. Aggrieved against this, revision has been preferred before this Court.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law as there was sufficient material against the proposed accused - opposite party nos.2 and 3 on record, but it has been illegally rejected merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises and considering the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix during custody under the compulsion of the accused person and local police. The evidence of the prosecutrix P.W.1 has completely been ignored. The daughter of the revisionist, who was aged about 11 years at the time of incident, was abducted by the accused persons and victim could have been recovered only after three months. Thereafter revisionist got the custody of his minor daughter only on 23.10.2013. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment and order has not been passed as per the settled legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 3 SCC 92 and several others leading judgments on the subject. Therefore, the prayer is for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.5.2015 and summoning the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as an additional accused to face the trial and revision is to be allowed.;