Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 657 of 2025 Revisionist :- Amit And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the submission of applicants/revisionists was not considered by the learned court below at the time of passing of order dated 19.03.2025. He further submitted that there is several flaws in the investigation as the investigation officer recorded the statement of victim under Section 180 BNSS in which the time of incident is shown 01:00 A.M. in the midnight, whereas in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it was stated that the incident was taken place at 03:00 A.M. and the medico-legal report also does not support the prosecution story but all these facts were not considered by the learned court below. He further submitted that in the statement of one witness namely, Ranu @ Ashmit Yadav stating that the victim stated about the incident to him, according to which, it was taken place at 03:00 A.M. and all these facts were not considered. He next submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS stated that accused persons were not identified by her, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. 3. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the revisionists and submitted that some flaws in the investigation will not be considered at the time of framing of charge as the victim had supported categorically the prosecution story and stated that all the accused persons committed rape with her and the submissions of applicants/revisionists can be considered at the appropriate stage during the course of trial, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. 4. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of FIR as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the victim has supported the prosecution version and the defence of the applicants/revisionists cannot be considered at this stage, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. 5. With the aforesaid, the revision is dismissed. Order date: 12.06.2025/Raj Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench