Allahabad HC: Discharge Plea, Accepted Findings of the Trail Court of MP Sakshi Maharaj In Rape and Kidnapping Case


Shivani Thakur

Published on: April 3 at 20:34 IST

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Revision Plea of State Government against the Discharge Order passed in 2001 in favor of Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament Sakshi Maharaj in connection with rape and kidnapping Case.

The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the discharge order by taking into consideration that there was no Evidence of kidnapping, loot or rape against the Member of Parliament Maharaj and other Accused Person.

Case in brief:

In 2000, First Information Report lodged in the Case Alleged that Member of Parliament Maharaj and his Associates kidnapped an Informant form the medical clinic and thereafter they Member of Parliament Maharaj and his Associates committed rape upon her continuously for nine days in Udaitpur Ashram.

After the Investigation, the Police submitted Charge-sheet against all Accused persons under Section 149, 366, 342, 392, 376, 506 Indian Penal Code. The Accused parties filed a Prayer for Discharged from the Charges framed against them.

The Trail Court in November 26, 2001, discharged them by passing Impugned Order.

The State Government challenging this Order in High Court, arguing that the Trail Court committed error of Law replying on the Affidavit filed later by the Informant which was in contradiction of her earlier Statement Recorded under Section 161, and 164 Criminal Procedure Code which might have been obtained under threat and pressure.

After considering the Arguments and Impugned Order passed by the Trail Court and also after Perusal of Record of the Court below, the High Court observed that the Allegation made by the informant of rape and assault 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 Criminal Procedure Code 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 all this, the Court concluded that there was no Illegality in the Impugned Order passing by the Trail Court, therefore, the Court upheld the Trail Court decision and thus, Revision Plea was dismissed.

Also Read: Rape is Rape, even if committed by Spouse: Karnataka High Court

Related Post