Full Text
Date of Decision: JANUARY 09, 2017
STATE ... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
Insp.Subhash Kumar, PS Sonia Vihar.
Through : Mr.Vishal Raj Sehijpal with Ms.Astha, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. Present Revision petition has been preferred by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 7.12.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby respondent No.1 was discharged for commission of offence under Section 365 IPC and respondents No.2 to 4 were discharged under Section 506 (II) IPC. The revision petition is contested by the respondents.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. I find no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned 2017:DHC:118 Crl.Rev.P.215/2012 order whereby respondents were discharged for the offence under Section 365 IPC (R-1) and under Section 506(II) IPC (R-2 to R-4) in the absence of any cogent material on record. It is relevant to note that the victim ‘X’ (assumed name) was examined as PW-3 before the Trial Court. Her testimony as PW-3 has been placed on record. She did not utter a word to implicate the respondents in her court statement. Contrary to that, she stated before the court that she had accompanied Respondent-Daud willingly and physical relations with him were with her free consent. The prosecutrix was major on the day of occurrence.
3. The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
4. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.
JUDGE JANUARY 09, 2017 sa