Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Chhabbu Sonkar on 10 August, 2016
Bench: Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 28
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3906 of 2016
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Chhabbu Sonkar
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
This Government Appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgement of acquittal dated 4.5.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Jaunpur in S.T. No.290 of 2011(State Versus Chhabbu Sonkar) under sections 363/366 I.P.C. relating to case crime no. 361 of 2011 P.S. Line Bazar district Jaunpur.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
That FIR of this case was got registered by the mother of the victim Smt. Sitara Devi alleging therein that her daughter Minakshi aged about 16 years was enticed away by Chhabbu Sonkar, aged about 26 years on 11.3.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. and in the matter his Bhabhi Smt. Kiran and his sister Km. Sita also helped. After lodging the FIR, the prosecution recorded statement of prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and after investigation charge sheet was submitted under sections 363/366 I.P.C.
After taking evidence of the prosecution as well as after recording the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused and after hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, thereby the impugned order was passed.
It is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the judgement of the trial court is not based on proper appreciation of evidence rather it is decided against the evidence on record. It is also submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the prosecutrix, P.W. 2 Minakshi has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement before the court and her statement was not relied upon by the trial court assigning the reason that are not cogent and proper.
The FIR was lodged after 5-6 days of the incident and it is said that the father of the prosecutrix was searching the prosecutrix here and there, when he came to know about the complicity of the accuseds, then he got the FIR registered. The trial court found that the prosecutrix went with the accused with her free will and consent. The trial court also considered the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 as well as under section 164 Cr.P.C. and found that the prosecutrix resiled from the statement made before the court for the reason being that she is married to somewhere else and does not want to spoil her married life. The trial court also considered the statement of P.W. 5 who admitted that prior the incident the marriage of the prosecutrix was settled elsewhere. She tried to commit suicide but she was saved by respondent/accused Chhabbu Sonkar. Her father did not take care of the prosecutrix, then Chhabbu Sonkar and the prosecutrix got married in temple. It is also an admitted fact that the prosexutrix was pregnant.
From the statement of the prosecturix, it can be inferred that she was a consenting party, she left with the respondent about 5-6 days prior to FIR but during that period no alarm was raised by her. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she did not support the version of rape but during the statement in the court, it has been stated by her that physical relation was made by force by the respondent.
On the basis of the statement of the proseuctrix in the court as well as the statement recorded under sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. the trial court did not feel it proper to accept the version of the prosecutrix that was given in the court, accordingly, came to the conclusion that case against the respondent is not proved.
The view taken by the learned trial court is one of the view that is possible, that view was taken on the ground that veracity of the witnesses is doubtful and there is material contradictions between the statement of witnesses. In the circumstances, this court is refraining from interfering with the judgement of the trial court. Thereby, the application for leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2016
N.A.
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3906 of 2016
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Chhabbu Sonkar
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Since the application for granting leave to appeal has been rejected, hence this Government appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2016
N.A.
