MANU/SC/0337/2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2022 (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8447 of 2015)

Decided On: 16.03.2022

Appellants: Nahar Singh Vs. Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Bose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question which we shall be addressing in this appeal is whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an Accused in the police report and whose name also does not feature in column (2) of such report. In this case the person concerned, being the Appellant, was not named in the First Information Report either. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has opined on this question in the affirmative in the judgment delivered on 14th May, 2015. This judgment is under appeal before us. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh had taken cognizance of offences Under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (1860 Code) on 8th August, 2012 on the basis of police report. These are offences triable before a Court of Session. The police report had named two individuals as Accused-Yogesh and Rupa (the spelling of the name of the latter has been interchangeably used in different proceedings emanating from the First Information Report (F.I.R.) as Roopa and Rupa). The police report was made on the basis of an F.I.R. made by the mother of a lady victim (prosecutrix) on 9th May, 2012 in Police Station Chhatari, sub-district Shikarpur in the district of Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. In this F.I.R., she stated that on 4th May, 2012, her minor daughter was enticed away by said Yogesh and his two or three associates. Later on, a radiologist on the basis of x-ray had found her to be a major, aged about 18 years. But the age-issue of the victim is not in controversy involved in this appeal.

3. The Investigating Officer recovered the prosecutrix on 10th May, 2012. Her statement Under Section 161 of the Code was recorded on 10th May itself. In her statement, in substance, she stated that Yogesh had committed rape upon her. The victim was, thereafter, produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr and her statement Under Section 164 of the Code was recorded on 14th May, 2012. In that statement, she had disclosed the names of the Accused Rupa, Yogesh as also the Appellant herein-Nahar Singh, as the persons who had committed rape upon her. Her statement, inter-alia, was recorded in the following terms:

It is an incident of 02.5.2012. It was 12 O'clock in the day. I was standing at the bus stand at that time. Two persons Rupa and Yogesh were standing there. Both of them forcibly took me to Pahasu. Both of them telephoned Nahar Singh there. He came there with a vehicle and all of them made me sit in that four wheeler vehicle and took me from there to Khurja. After closing the vehicle all of them took turns of rape on me. Thereafter, all of them consumed liquor and also forcibly made me drink liquor by putting it in Pepsi. Then again all of them forcibly rape........