3 April 2022 6:16 AM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a revision plea filed by the State Government against the discharge order passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in 2001 in favor of BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj in connection with a rape and kidnapping case.The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the discharge order by taking into account the findings of the trial court that there was no evidence of allegation...
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a revision plea filed by the State Government against the discharge order passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in 2001 in favor of BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj in connection with a rape and kidnapping case.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the discharge order by taking into account the findings of the trial court that there was no evidence of allegation of kidnapping, loot or rape against the MP Maharaj and other accused persons.
The case in brief
As per the FIR lodged in the case, in the year 2000, it was alleged that MP 'Maharaj' and his associates kidnapped the informant from a medical clinic and thereafter, they committed rape with her in Udaitpur Ashram and also assaulted her.
It was further alleged that other associates of Maharaj also committed raped upon her continuously for nine days. Several other allegations were also leveled against the opposite parties of obtaining a signature on agreement etc.
After the investigation, the police submitted its charge sheet against all accused persons under Sections 149, 366, 342, 392, 376, 506 I.P.C. The accused opposite parties filed an application with the prayer that they may be discharged from the charge framed against them.
The trial court, after hearing D.G.C.(Criminal) and the counsel for the accused opposite parties, vide order November 26, 2001, discharged the accused opposite parties by passing the impugned order.
Challening this order, the State Government moved to the High Court arguing that the Trial Court committed error of law by placing reliance on the affidavit filed subsequently by the informant which was in contradiction of her earlier statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which might have been obtained under threat and pressure.
After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and after considering the impugned order passed by the trial court and also after perusal of record of the court below, the High Court observed that regarding the allegation of assault and rape made by the informant allegedly committed by the accused persons, the informant had not produced any medical evidence.
"Even regarding allegation of kidnapping of informant from clinic of Dr. Natthu Singh Baghel was not found true as the said doctor in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has denied that such incident was took place in his clinic. The witnesses of the alleged kidnapping, who were produced by the police as eye witnesses, have not named the accused opposite parties. There was no identification parade of the accused persons, nor any allegation was made specifically against the opposite party No. 1-Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi," the Court further observed.
In view of above, the court concluded that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, therefore, the Court held that the order under challenge needs no interference by this Court and thus, the revision was dismissed.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi And OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 157
Click Here To Read/Download Order