# Sonu @ Pinku v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1092
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2202 of 2013
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonu-pinku-v-state-of-u-p-50737
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section
374
-
The
Evidence
Act,1872- Appeal against judgment whereby
accused has been convicted under Sections
363 & 376(2)(f) IPC & under Section 25
Arms Act--- Accused raped the victim and
threw her on the side of road, where she
was found injured with bleeding--- Victim
although is a child witness but the concerned
court has recorded its satisfaction on the
basis of questioning of the victim that she is
capable of giving answers to the questions
posed to her--- Where direct evidence is
worthy, it can be believed, and motive does
not carry much weight, merely because that
there was no strong motive to commit the
present offence, prosecution case cannot be
disbelieved--- Nothing in cross-examination
which
may
render
the
St.ments
of
prosecution witnesses doubtful. Naturally
some minor contradictions and discrepancies
have occurred in their examination but they
do not go to the root of case--- Trial court,
after proper appreciation of evidence, has
rightly convicted the accused under the
alleged
sections---Sentence
of
life
imprisonment
is modified to 14
years
rigorous imprisonment keeping in view that
accused is a first offender and the possibility
of his correction cannot be ruled out. (Para
22, 23, 25 & 28)

Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:
9 All. Sonu @ Pinku Vs. State of U.P.
1093

## Text

1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty, (3) the
circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency, (4) they should
exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and (5) there must be
a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been
done by the accused. "

15. On the basis of above discussion
this Court is of the view that any ingredient
mandatory for conviction and sentencing of
an
accused
in
a
case
based
on
circumstantial evidence has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain
of circumstantial evidence also could not
be
established
against
the
accusedappellant. Thus, this Court concludes that
the order of conviction and sentencing
passed by the learned Trial Court is not
liable to be sustained in the eye of law and
is liable to be set-aside.z

Order

The appeal is allowed and the
impugned
order
of
conviction
and
sentencing dated 20.1.2014 is hereby
quashed. Let the appellant be set free from
jail. This order be sent immediately to the
Jail
Superintendent
concerned.
Lower
Court record be sent back along with a
copy of this judgment.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1092
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2023

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2202 of 2013

Sonu @ Pinku ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri T.K. Mishra, Abhilash Singh, Sri Ashutosh
Yadav, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai,
Sri Shyam Lal

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section
374
-
The
Evidence
Act,1872- Appeal against judgment whereby
accused has been convicted under Sections
363 & 376(2)(f) IPC & under Section 25
Arms Act--- Accused raped the victim and
threw her on the side of road, where she
was found injured with bleeding--- Victim
although is a child witness but the concerned
court has recorded its satisfaction on the
basis of questioning of the victim that she is
capable of giving answers to the questions
posed to her--- Where direct evidence is
worthy, it can be believed, and motive does
not carry much weight, merely because that
there was no strong motive to commit the
present offence, prosecution case cannot be
disbelieved--- Nothing in cross-examination
which
may
render
the
St.ments
of
prosecution witnesses doubtful. Naturally
some minor contradictions and discrepancies
have occurred in their examination but they
do not go to the root of case--- Trial court,
after proper appreciation of evidence, has
rightly convicted the accused under the
alleged
sections---Sentence
of
life
imprisonment
is modified to 14
years
rigorous imprisonment keeping in view that
accused is a first offender and the possibility
of his correction cannot be ruled out. (Para
22, 23, 25 & 28)

Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:
9 All. Sonu @ Pinku Vs. State of U.P.
1093
1. P. Ramesh Vs St. Rep. By Inspector of Police,
AIR (2019) SC 3559

2. Lokesh Shivakumar Vs St. of Karn., (2012) 3
SCC 196

3. Sampath Kumar Vs Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124

4. Sachin Kumar Singhraha Vs St. of M.P. (2019)
8 SCC 371

5. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh & ors.,
(2014) 7 SCC 323

6. Sham Sunder Vs Puran (1990) 4 SCC 731

7. M.P. Vs Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554

8. Ravji Vs St. of Raj., (1996) 2 SCC 175

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,
J.)

1. Present appeal has been filed by
accused-appellant Sonu @ Pinku against
the judgement and order dated 19.12.2012
passed by IInd Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in
Session Trial No.629 of 2010 (State Vs.
Sonu @ Pinku) under Section 363, 366Ka and 376(2)(f) IPC and Session Trial
No. 630 of 2010 (State vs. Sonu @
Pinku), under Section 25 Arms Act
arising out of Case Crime No. 824 of
2010, P.S. Sector-58, NOIDA, Gautam
Budh Nagar, whereby Trial Court has
convicted accused Sonu @ Pinku and
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment
for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 363 IPC, 7 years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-
under Section 366-Ka I.P.C. and life
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-
under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. with
default punishment and 2 years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-
under Section 25 Arms Act.

2. Prosecution story in brief in F.I.R.
is as follows :-

On
10.06.2010,
informant
/
complainant's
children
were
playing
outside the slums / Jhuggis built on the
vacant plot before the petrol pump
Wajidpur when the informant had gone to
his work as usual. At about 11:30 a.m., one
black Indica Car stopped near the children,
which was being driven by accusedappellant Sonu @ Pinku, who seduced the
victim aged about 8 years (name is not
disclosed by the Court) and 3-4 other
children were playing there and made them
sit in the car and after covering some
distance, he took off all the children except
the victim from the car and took her
(victim) towards Sector 62. Information,
whereof, was given to police then the
police vehicles came on spot in search of
Indica Car and started its search. The
accused-appellant raped the victim and
threw her on the side of road in A-Block
Sector 62, Noida, where she was found
injured with bleeding, victim was taken to
hospital in injured position for medical
examination where she was medically
examined.

3. A written Tehrir Ex.Ka-1 was
presented by victim's father Ramesh @
Mehadi Hasan in the police station
concerned whereupon F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-4) was
drawn by constable Moharrir and entry was
made in general diary.

4. P.W.-5 Dr. Archana Tyagi,
medically
examined
the
victim
and
prepared medical report (Ex.Ka-2). P.W.-8
Dr. Renu Awana, later on, examined her
and prepared medical report Ex.Ka-11. The
patient
was
admitted
and undergone
operation in hospital till 30.06.2010 under
the supervision of Dr. Renu Awana.
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. P.W.-7 Rajesh Bharti undertook
investigation in the matter, visited the spot,
prepared site plan, recorded the statement
of informant, victim and other witnesses
and apprehended the accused on the
information of informer on 15.06.2010 and
recovered one country made tamancha of
12 bore with one cartridge from the
possession of accused-appellant and on his
pointing out one blood stained seat cover
was recovered, prepared Fards thereof
(Ex.Ka-8 and 9) and after completing entire
formalities
of
investigation
submitted
charge
sheet
(Ex.Ka-10)
against
the
accused-appellant under Section 363 and
376 I.P.C

6. P.W.-10 S.I. Mangeram Sharma
undertook the investigation of Case Crime
No. 824 of 2010, under Section 25 of Arms
Act and after completing entire formalities
of investigation, found sufficient evidence
and submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka-16)
against the accused-appellant under Section
25 Arms Act.

7. Case, being exclusively triable by
Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate
committed the case of accused-appellant to
the Court of Session wherefrom it was
transferred to and came to be decided by
IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Gautam Budh Nagar.

8. Learned Trial Court, after perusing
the record, framed charges against accusedappellant Sonu @ Pinku under Sections
363 & 376 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act to
which he denied, pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.

9. In order to substantiate its case,
prosecution examined as many as ten
witnesses out of whom PW-1 Ramesh @
Mehadi Hasan, PW-2 Victim, PW-3 Rajjab
and P.W.-4 Nazreen are witnesses of fact and
PW-5 Dr. Archana Tyagi, PW-6 Rajpal Singh,
PW-7 Rajesh Bharti, PW-8 Dr. Renu Awana,
P.W.-9 Satish Chandra Sharma and PW-10
Mangeram Sharma are formal witnesses.

10. Subsequent to closure of prosecution
evidence, statement of accused-appellant
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by
Court explaining entire evidence and other
incriminating circumstances. In the statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant
denied prosecution story in toto, story and
statement of witnesses are said to be wrong
and under the pressure of police, he claimed
false implication in the present case. He
specifically stated that 3 to 4 days before
incident, victim had broken the glass of his
vehicle, he demanded the damages whereupon
there was a quarrel with her Mausa, thus, he
has been falsely implicated in this case. No
evidence has been produced in defence.

11. Trial Court, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties and appreciating entire
evidence led by prosecution on record found
accused-appellant guilty and convicted him
as stated above. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with impugned judgement and
order of conviction, present appeal has been
filed by the accused-appellant.

12. We have heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav,
learned counsel for the accused-appellant and
Sri Arun Kumar, learned A.G.A for Staterespondent and perused the record carefully
with the valuable assistance of learned
counsel for the parties.

13. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant
advanced
his
argument
in
following manner :-

(i) The accused-appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the
9 All. Sonu @ Pinku Vs. State of U.P.
1095
present case. There is no eye witness of the
occurrence. Independent witness has not
been produced from the side of prosecution
to support its case.

(ii) There was a prior dispute between
the accused-appellant and parents of
victim. Thus, he has been falsely roped in
this case.

(iii) There is no strong motive to the
accused-appellant to commit such heinous
crime that too with the minor victim.

(iv) There is material contradiction in
the statement of victim itself. He referred
some part of cross-examination and argued
that no case under Section 376 I.P.C. is
made out.

(v) Learned counsel for the accusedappellant further requested that in case,
appellant is found guilty, the accusedappellant already served imprisonment
more than 13 years, thus, he should be
considered
for
imprisonment
already
undergone.

14. Learned AGA refuted the argument
by submitting that victim was about 8 years
old at the time of incident. The accusedappellant rudely ruptured her due to which
she got injured, P.W.-3 Rajjab, who was
playing with her at the time of incident
supported the prosecution case. There is no
scope for any doubt in the prosecution case.
Trial court rightly appreciated the evidence in
trial and convicted the accused-appellant.
Considering the act committed by the
accused-appellant with the minor child, no
sympathy is required in such circumstances.
The appeal lacks merit and deserves to be
dismissed.

15. Now, we may proceed to consider
the argument advanced by both the sides
and evidence produced from the side of
prosecution as no defence evidence has
been produced.

16. P.W. -1 Ramesh @ Menhdi
Hassan (father of victim) is the informant.
He supported the prosecution case but he is
not the eye witness of the incident. He
lodged the F.I.R. by saying that his minor
daughter / victim was playing with other
kids in the vacant plot. The incident was
told by his daughter / victim, he found his
daughter in injured position at the side of
road towards Sector 62. His daughter was
thrown away by accused-appellant Sonu
after committing rape on her. He lodged the
F.I.R. in police station concerned. He
proved Tehrir as Ex.Ka-1. The informant's
wife made a call at helpline number 100
whereupon police also came there, then his
wife and police took the victim to hospital
where she was treated. The victim told the
name of accused as Sonu. Police also
inquired him and recorded his statement.
Witness
withstood
a
lengthy
crossexamination. Since he is not eye witness of
incident, thus, a serious scrutiny of his
examination is not much required. In crossexamination, nothing has been extracted so
as to disbelieve his statement.

17. P.W.-3 Rajjab, aged about 13
years at the time of examination in 2011,
who was playing with victim, supported the
prosecution version by stating that he was
known to accused-appellant Sonu from
before and at the time of incident he was
playing with other kids namely Chand
Babu, Shabana and 2 or 3 other kids
beneath the tree. Sonu (Accused) came
there with Indica Car and asked them for a
ride in the car, they sat in the car and after
moving a bit, accused Sonu asked all the
kids to get down, Sabana was sitting on the
front seat of the car, everyone asked Sabana
to get down but Sonu drove the car away.
Then, he went to Sabana's house and
narrated the entire incident to her mother,
her father was not there and had gone to
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
work. Later, police inquired him and he
told the police whatever happened. This
witness was minor at the time of crossexamination also. He was playing with the
victim. He supported the prosecution case
to the extent that he had seen the accused
taking the victim with him. Witness was
sufficiently cross-examined but nothing has
come in evidence so as to disbelieve his
natural statement. Actually, he had not seen
the incident of rape but he proved that
accused-appellant Sonu had taken away the
victim. Later on she was found injured at
the side of road towards Sector 62.

18. P.W-4 Nazreen, mother of victim
had not seen the actual occurrence. She
supported the prosecution case upon the
saying of others for whatever she was
informed regarding the incident. Thus, this
witness also does not require a thorough
scrutiny. She was also cross-examined but
nothing could be brought on record making
her statement unbelievable.

19. The statement of P.W.-2 injured
herself remains important and is to be
scrutinized carefully. P.W.-2, victim aged
about 8 years at the time of incident,
supported the prosecution evidence on oath
by stating that at the time of occurrence she
was playing with other kids at about 11:00-
12:00 in the plot. Accused-appellant Sonu
came there with a car and asked them to
take a ride in the car. She also sat in the car
with other children, after covering some
distance he took off other kids from the car
but did not allow her to get off from the car.
He drove her ahead for some distance and
stopped the car and started misbehaving
with her at the back seat of the car. Accused
Sonu started misbehaving and beat her so
she cried, screamed. By the misbehavior,
she meant, he took off her pantyhose, he
threw her from moving car, blood also
came out of her genital. She told everything
to her parents, police also came, they
questioned her and took her to hospital
where she was treated. The victim was
sufficiently
cross-examined.
Much
emphasis for disbelieving the prosecution
story was given from the accusedappellant's side to the statement of
witnesses in cross-examination where she
stated that accused has torn her genital by
his finger and due to excess fingering,
bleeding occurred. Accused had nothing
else except tearing it with his finger, by
referring that part of her statement learned
counsel for the accused-appellant argued
that it may be a case under Section 354
I.P.C. and some other section but no
offence of rape is made out.

20. So far as the aforesaid statement
of the victim is concerned, it is relevant to
mention here that the victim further
clarified that accused-appellant Sonu had
pressed her feet in the car and slapped her
and first put his finger, then he put his penis
on her genital due to which she cried,
screamed and bled. She further clarified
that accused on the pretext of urinating,
took her off the car and ran away. When
she got off the car, she was bleeding. Thus,
statement of victim clearly shows that she
was raped by the accused-appellant and it is
well settled position of law that evidence of
prosecutrix is sufficient to set the accused
convicted if her statement is found reliable.
So far as the plea of false implication, it is
not natural for any father to stake the
honour of his minor daughter to avenge a
previous dispute, that too by falsely
alleging that she has been raped.

21. It would be worth noticing that the
victim in the present case is an eight year
old female child, who had been admitted to
Prakash Hospital at Noida. A certificate has
9 All. Sonu @ Pinku Vs. State of U.P.
1097
been issued by the doctor that the victim
was admitted in the hospital and had
undergone third degree perineal tear repair
on 25.06.2010 and was discharged on
30.06.2010. The certificate of doctor has
been exhibited as Ka.11. The prosecution
has also brought on record the injury report
of minor victim prepared by doctor of Dr.
Bheem
Rao
Multi-speciality
Hospital,
Sector-9, Noida. The injury report has been
proved as Ex.Ka.2 by Dr. Archana Tyagi
(PW-5). PW-5 has specifically stated that
the victim was brought by Sub-Inspector
Kalpana Gautam on 10.06.2010 at 04.00
pm. In the internal examination of the
victim the doctor found her bleeding from
her vagina. There was a cut at 7 'O' clock
position. The victim was admitted in the
hospital and her age has been found as
seven years. The doctor has clearly stated
that possibility of sexual assault on the
minor victim cannot be ruled out. From the
evidence on record as also the specific
implication of accused by the victim
herself, we find that the prosecution has
clearly succeeded in establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

22. The victim although is a child
witness but we find her testimony to be
reliable as she has been examined by the
court before recording her statement. The
victim has clearly disclosed the name of her
village and the district to which she
belonged.
The
concerned
court
has
recorded its satisfaction on the basis of
questioning of the victim that she is capable
of giving answers to the questions posed to
her. Law with regard to competence of
child witness to depose has been examined
by the Supreme Court in P. Ramesh vs.
State Rep. By Inspector of Police, AIR
(2019) SC 3559, wherein the Court has
observed as under in para 15 of the
judgment:-

"In order to determine the competency
of a child witness, the judge has to form her
or his opinion. The judge is at the liberty to
test the capacity of a child witness and no
precise rule can be laid down regarding the
degree of intelligence and knowledge which
will render the child a competent witness.
The competency of a child witness can be
ascertained by questioning her/him to find
out the capability to understand the
occurrence witnessed and to speak the truth
before the court. In criminal proceedings, a
person of any age is competent to give
evidence if she/he is able to (i) understand
questions put as a witness; and (ii) give
such answers to the questions that can be
understood. A child of tender age can be
allowed to testify if she/he has the
intellectual
capacity
to
understand
questions and give rational answers
thereto. 9 A child becomes incompetent
only in case the court considers that the
child was unable to understand the 8
(2004) 1 SCC 64. Subsequently, relied upon
in Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of
Maharashtra,
(2008)
12
SCC
565
Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat,
(2004) 1 SCC 64 questions and answer
them in a coherent and comprehensible
manner. If the child understands the
questions put to her/him and gives rational
answers to those questions, it can be taken
that she/he is a competent witness to be
examined."

23. So far as motive is concerned, it is
well settled that where direct evidence is
worthy, it can be believed, and motive does
not carry much weight. It is also notable
that mind set of accused persons differs
from each other. Thus merely because that
there was no strong motive to commit the
present offence, prosecution case cannot be
disbelieved. We do not find any substance
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the argument advanced by learned
counsel for appellants.

24. In Lokesh Shivakumar v. State
of Karnataka, (2012) 3 SCC 196, Court
has held as under :-

"As
regards
motive,
it
is
well
established that if the prosecution case is
fully
established
by
reliable
ocular
evidence coupled with medical evidence,
the issue of motive looses practically all
relevance. In this case, we find the ocular
evidence led in support of the prosecution
case wholly reliable and see no reason to
discard it."

25. So far as discrepancies, variation
and contradiction in the prosecution case
are concerned, we have analysed entire
evidence
in
consonance
with
the
submissions raised by learned counsel and
the witnesses PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 supported
the prosecution case as witnesses. All the
four witnesses withstood lengthy crossexamination but nothing adverse material
could be brought on record so as to
disbelieve
their
statements.
There
is
nothing in cross-examination which may
render their statements doubtful. Naturally
some
minor
contradictions
and
discrepancies
have
occurred
in
their
examination but they do not go to the root
of case.

26. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector
of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124,
Court has held that minor contradictions
are bound to appear in the statements of
truthful witnesses as memory sometimes
plays false and sense of observation differs
from person to person.

27. In Sachin Kumar Singhraha v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC
371, Supreme Court has observed that
Court will have to evaluate evidence before
it keeping in mind the rustic nature of
depositions of the villagers, who may not
depose about exact geographical locations
with mathematical precision. Discrepancies
of this nature which do not go to the root of
the matter do not obliterate otherwise
acceptable evidence. It need not be stated
that it is by now well settled that minor
variations should not be taken into
consideration while assessing the reliability
of witness testimony and the consistency of
the prosecution version as a whole.

28. Upon careful consideration of the
statement of witnesses especially the
statement of victim we are of the opinion
that trial court, after proper appreciation of
evidence,
has
rightly
convicted
the
accused-appellant
under
the
alleged
sections and we do not persuade ourselves
to take a different view than that of trial
court.

29. We find no merit in appeal,
accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on
merit.

30. So far as the sentence awarded by
trial court to the accused-appellant in the
alleged sections is concerned, it is settled
legal position that appropriate sentence
should be awarded after giving due
consideration
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case, nature of
offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed. It is obligation of
court to constantly remind itself that right
of victim, and be it said, on certain
occasions person aggrieved as well as
society at large can be victims, never be
marginalised. The measure of punishment
should be proportionate to gravity of
offence. Object of sentencing should be to
9 All. Raster Images Pvt. Ltd. Tamil Nadu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1099
protect society and to deter the criminal in
achieving avowed object of law. Further, it
is expected that courts would operate the
sentencing system so as to impose such
sentence which reflects conscience of
society and sentencing process has to be
stern where it should be. The Court will
be failing in its duty if appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime
which has been committed not only
against individual victim but also against
society to which criminal and victim
belong. Punishment to be awarded for a
crime must not be irrelevant but it
should conform to and be consistent with
the atrocity and brutality which the
crime has been perpetrated, enormity of
crime warranting public abhorrence and
it should 'respond to the society's cry for
justice against the criminal'. [Vide:
Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and
others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham
Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731,
M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554,
Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2
SCC 175].

31. Under the facts and circumstances
of the case and considering the manner in
which offence is committed as also the age
of the victim, who is sexually assaulted, we
deem it appropriate to modify the sentence
awarded to the accused-appellant by trial
court, keeping in view that accused is a first
offender
and
the
possibility
of
his
correction cannot be ruled out.

(i) The conviction of the accused
under the alleged sections is maintained.

(ii) Sentence of life imprisonment
under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. is converted
to 14 years rigorous imprisonment.

(iii) In default of payment of fine as
awarded by trial court under the alleged
sections, accused-appellant shall further
undergo for a period of two months
imprisonment.

(iv) All the sentences shall run
concurrently and accused-appellant shall be
entitled to the benefit of Section 428
Cr.P.C.

32. Certify the copy of this judgement
to the trial court concerned for immediate
compliance.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1099
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 10 of 2020

Raster Images Pvt. Ltd. Tamil Nadu
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ritesh Kalia, Abhishek Khare, Debasish
Moitra,
Pravin
Kumar
Verma,
Vabhu
Shankar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Vivek Kumar Rai, Ajai Kumar, C.S.C.

Civil Law-The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996-Section 11(6)---The petition has
been filed by one member of the Consortium
only without impleading the other Consortium
members including against whom allegations
have been leveled and the said allegations are
prima facie indicative of disputes inter-se the
Consortium members which may not be
referable for arbitration.--- Petition is not
maintainable at the behest of the petitioner
alone for the nature of disputes so raised.
(Para 61 & 62)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)