Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Autar on 24 May, 2016
Bench: Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2584 of 2016
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Autar
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.
Heard Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present Government Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.02.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 1, Moradabad, in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 2010 - (State of U.P Vs. Ram Autar) arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C, Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad.
Learned A.G.A for the State submitted that according to first information report as well as School Transfer Certificate the prosecutrix was minor at the date of incident. However, the trial court held that she was consenting party and disbelieve the prosecution story that the prosecutrix was minor as per the School Transfer Certificate as this document was not duly attested by the concerned B.S.A In absence of a valid documentary evidence, he has relied upon the medical report of the victim according to which she was found above the age of 19 years. Hence the impugned order requires reconsideration.
Considered the submissions made on behalf of State.
According to the first information report itself in the morning of 07th February, 2008, the daughter of informant - namely Km. Poonam aged about 15 years was allured by accused - respondent. According to School Leaving Certificate she was above 16 years of age. According to medical report she was aged above 19 years of age and according to prosecution case itself she went alongwith the accused respondent. From her statement it appears that she never tried to escape from the custody of the accused - respondent. Though, there was an ample opportunity to raise alarm for hold and to run away. According to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she went with the accused - respondent and married. She gave birth to one child before the incident. The circumstances shows that she was a consenting party and the same view was recorded by the trial court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while considering the appeal against the acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, presumption of innocence is available to such accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, secondly, that a lower court, upon due appreciation of all evidence has found him innocent. Merely because another view is possible, there is no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Since the view taken by the court below appears to be a reasonable, and possible view, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal and prayer for leave to appeal is refused.
Accordingly, the present application seeking leave to appeal, is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 24.05.2016.
Vinod.
