HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4300 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 17.5.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Farrukhabad in Session Trial No. 190 of 2023 (State vs. Ashok Yadav and others), arising out of Complaint Case No. 32 of 2022 (Anita vs. Ashok Yadav and others), under Sections 328 and 354 I.P.C., P.S. Farrukhabad Kotwali, District- Fatehpur, by which the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned trial Court has prima facie relied upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of two other witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that, so far as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of two other witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is concerned, all of them did not corroborate the sequence of events, as much as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. reveals, that she was called to Kanpur by giving a phone call, as if the accused persons were known to the victim prior to the alleged incident and she was taken in a car at the behest of the accused persons and immediately she consumed some cold drink and became unconscious and after committing the alleged offence at the hands of accused persons she was left in a forest in unconscious state and on regaining the consciousness she left to her home and has taken the matter to Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arun Kumar Tripathi, G.A. Priyanka Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) legal course. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that Grish Chand (PW-1) in his statement has stated that he was selling vegetables at some place at Pachalghat (located in District Farrukhabad) and while selling vegetables, he found that some lady has been taken out from the car and four persons (two gents and two ladies) were accompanied to drop the victim from the said car. He further submitted that the vegetables vendor could identify the persons sitting in the car that they were under the influence of liquor, but could not read the number plate of the said vehicle as he is an illiterate person. He also submitted that PW-2 Sangeet in his statement has stated that he is a labourer and after doing labour work, when he was returning to his home Ghatiyahar (District Farrukhabad) he saw that four persons (two gents and two ladies), who were sitting inside the car, were forcible getting down a lady (victim) from the said car. The said lady was got down from the car by the aforesaid four persons, thereafter they ran away speedily with the car. The witness could satisfy himself that the ladies sitting in the car were under the influence of liquor. He also stated that he could not read the number plate as he is an illiterate person. He tried to enquire from the lady (victim) but she did not stop and left the place. 5. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, despite given opportunity to file counter affidavit. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.05.2024 is in accordance with law and based on the testimony of the victim and two other witnesses and prayed that the said revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and having perusal of the record, it appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the said order dated 17.05.2024 in a cursory manner, whereas, it is a matter of record that the lady (victim) visited Kanpur, but thereafter she was found at some place at Ghatiyahar located in Farrukhabad. The statement of the victim herself reveals that, she was dropped in a forest in unconscious state, whereas the statement of another two witnesses reveals that she was dropped at a place from the car and left to her house. She did not reply to any query, when both the witnesses namely, PW-1 and PW-2 have tried to inquire some fact from the victim. Hence, there appears variations at large between statement of victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of other two CRLR No. 4300 of 2024 2 witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. There is no continuity, coherence and connectivity related to the entire incident, as much as the victim has gone to Kanpur and was dropped on a way at Ghatiahar (Farrukhabad). The victim was stated to be dropped in a forest (as per her own testimony) in unconscious state, whereas the witnesses have stated that she was dropped from the car forcibly and after being dropped from the car they ran away, thus the incident narrated by the victim herself and other two witnesses does not corroborate the series of events. Moreover both the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 also played the role of a doctor or specialist, who could identify that the ladies sitting in the car were under the influence of liquor, when seen from a distance, which appears to be superficial and beyond human approach. 8. Under the circumstances, the revision is allowed. The order dated 17.5.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Farrukhabad is hereby set aside. 9. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Farrukhabad is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law. October 8, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 4300 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad