Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Sukhvir And 3 Others on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Naveen Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 47
Govt. Appeal No. 43/2020
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Opposite Party :- 1. Sukhvir
2. Sanjeev @ Nanhe Lal
3. Rajeev
4. Charan Devi
Counsel for Appellant :- Government Advocate
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava, J.
Heard the learned A.G.A.
This criminal appeal along with leave is preferred under Section 378(3) by the State against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2019, by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etah in S.T. No.59/2014 , acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 363/366/342/376/120-B IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act.
1. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim, alleged to be aged around 16 years, was kidnapped / abducted in broad-day-light, near the bus stand by 7 named accused on 17.5.2014. The FIR came to be lodged after 25 days of the occurrence as against the above named accused persons. The victim was recovered on 12.6.2014, i.e. just a day after of the lodging of the FIR i.e. 11.6.2014.
2. During Investigation, she denied in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was raped while her medical examination on the same date indicated no definite opinion of rape, in her supplementary medical report, she was reported to be around 18 years. During her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she feigned ignorance as to the identity of the principal accused Sukhvir.
3. It is submitted by the learned AGA that the trial court while acquitting the respondents has misread the evidence on record as also the testimony of the victim which undoubtedly indicated the commission of the offences.
5. We have perused the judgement and find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial court in recording the judgement of acquittal. The trial court has acquitted the accused on following cogent grounds:-
i) That there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR i.e. after 25 days without any explanation with not even a missing report.
ii) The prosecution failed to establish as to what efforts were made by the family of the victim to ascertain the whereabouts of the victim as also the identities of accused.
iii) The prosecution case comes under suspect when the FIR is lodged on 11.6.2014 against 7 named accused without disclosing as to how the informant came to know about the sequence of occurrence as also identity of accused as the victim was recovered on 12.6.2014 i.e. after lodging of the FIR.
iv) The statement of the victim as regards commission of alleged rape is inconsistent as she in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, denied rape while under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged rape but feigned ignorance as to identity of principal accused Sukhvir while in the witness box she claims to have known him.
v) Non-examination of shopkeepers near scene of occurrence i.e. a prominent crossing from where she was taken away forcibly in a vehicle, seriously dents the case of prosecution so as to create reasonable doubts.
vi) The prosecution alleged that the victim was of 16 years but no supporting document was brought on record even though she was alleged to have studied upto Class V/VIII, while on medication examination she was reported to be around 18 years. Thus, prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was minor on the date of alleged occurrence.
vii) The prosecution also failed to establish even by indicating a brief topography where the victim was kept under confinement coupled with the fact that it was not the case of prosecution that the victim was forcibly prevented from escape
viii) The prosecution failed to establish the incriminating role played by all the other accusd.
6. We in the light of above background, are of the considered view that the view taken by the court below is a reasonable and a probable view emerging from the evidence on record to which no perversity could be demonstrated.
The leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
Order Date:- 14.7.2021
Chandra
(Naveen Srivastava,J) (Pankaj Naqvi,J)
