Vinod Prasad - (1.) -Ashok Kumar Dixit, the unfortunate father of Km. Shikha Dixit, aged about 17 years, who has been subjected to gang rape has invoked the revisional power of this Court under Section 397/401, Cr. P.C., questioning the legality and justifiability of the impugned order dated 19.10.2006 passed by Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Etawah, in Special Case No. 33 of 2004, State v. Kiran Misra and others, as well as in connected Special Case No. 73 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B and 364A, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, Etawah, District Etawah, vide Crime No. 357 of 2003 by which the Special Judge has discharged accused Hari Om Verma, Dharmendra Kumar alias Raj Verma, Kiran Misra, Sweta alias Lucky, Bajrang, Devendra Gupta, Anant Kumar Dubey, Sudhakar and Roop Chand, of charges under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B and 364A, I.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge Section 227/228, Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code). I hasten to add that this, in fact, is the second innings by the informant in this Court after the matter has been remanded back by the Apex Court.
(2.) BRIEF summary of un-eschewable facts gathered from various annexures appended alongwith the memo of revision and the counter and rejoinder-affidavits are that Shikha Dixit, aged about 17 years daughter of informant Ashok Kumar Dixit, a resident of Anand Nagar, near Deep Talkies, Etawah, went alongwith her neighbour friend Kiran Misra, wife of Krishna Kumar Misra and Sweta alias Lucky, on 10.10.03 at 7 p.m. on the false pretext of discussion of studies. When Shikha Dixit did not return for quite some time informant went to the house of Kiran Misra to inquire about the whereabouts of his daughter he could not find all the three of them there and was informed that all the three had gone to the resident of Hari Om. Accompanied by Budh Prakash his brother-in-law when the informant reached the house of Hari Om then he came to know that his daughter has been abducted by the respondents 2 to 10 the discharged accused persons. Sensing that his daughter can be subjected to illegal acts and can even be done to death that the informant gave an application at the police station Kotwali District Etawah on 16.10.2003 vide Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit appended alongwith this revision but no F.I.R. was formally registered by the police. Another application dated 25.10.2003 to the S.S.P., Etawah, vide Annexure-2, and subsequent applications to the higher authorities did not yield any fruitful results and ultimately the informant resorted to political pressure and thereafter his F.I.R. was ordered to be registered by S.S.P., Etawah and thereafter on his direction the F.I.R. Annexure No. 6 was registered on 1.11.2003 at police Station Kotwali District Etawah for offences under Section 363/366, I.P.C. as Crime Number 357 of 203, against Kiran Misra, Sweta alias Lucky, Hari Om and Dharmendra Kumar alias Raj Verma. Lacklustre investigation in an attempt to shield the culprits, as has been alleged by the revisionists, compelled the father to stage various demonstrations and rallies but the police failed to trace out the abductee. However, Shikha Dixit returned on 13.12.2003 and was medically examined vide Annexure-16. Since the Police was siding with the accused and had also manufactured victims statement under Section 161 of the Code vide Annexure-15, that the informant moved various applications for transfer of investigation vide Annexures-12 to 14. Subsequently thereto Section164, Cr. P.C. statement of Shikha Dixit was recorded on 10.2.2004 vide Annexure-17. Another development which took place meanwhile was filing of a habeas corpus writ petition by the Dharmendra alias Raj Kumar claiming himself to be the husband to the victim being H.C. Writ Petition No. 792 of 2004. However the same was dismissed by this Court after recording the statement of the victim vide Annexure-19.
(3.) AFTER completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheets in various lots against the accused respondents 2 to 10 in this revision on the basis of which Special Judge (D.A.A.) took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused respondents 2 to 10 for the aforementioned offences but at the stage of framing of charge, vide impugned order dated 19.10.2006, discharge them. Hence this revision against the order for discharge. In the first round in this Court the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back but the said order passed by this Court was set aside by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. No. 2807 of 2007 on 27.8.2007 on the ground that the said order was passed without notifying the parties and the matter was remanded back to this Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.;