State Of U.P. vs Dhiraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 8292 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 169 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Dhiraj
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.

Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri V.S. Rajbhar, the learned A.G.A for the State.

This government appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.1.2001 acquitting the accused respondent of charges leveled under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Rape and POCSO Act)-II, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2014 (State Vs. Dhiraj).

The case of prosecution case is that on 19.5.2014, while the informant was in his house along with his wife & minor daughter (aged 10 years) sister of accused Dhiraj lured the victim, took her away, but as she didn't return, a report was lodged against accused Dhiraj in above offences.

Learned A.G.A, submitted that the victim was minor as per her school certificate and the trial court committed error, when it relied upon the medical evidence to determine her age, thus the judgment of the trial court acquitting accused is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

The trial court while recording acquittal held that the victim (PW-2) on medical examination was reported to be around 20 years, as also from the evidence of her parents (PW's 1 and 3), she was more than 18 years, PW-2 did not support the case of prosecution as she stated that she went of her own free will with the accused to Delhi with whom she stayed for 8 days. She appeared to be in a consenting relationship with the accused for the last 5 years as also she wanted to marry him. Her evidence was on the same lines as given in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, where she did not support the prosecution and on the contrary stated that her father wanted to forcibly marry her against her will.

Coming to the contention of the learned A.G.A, that the victim was a minor, we find that no doubt, victim claims herself to be class 5 fail, but the prosecution did not bring on record any educational certificate in support of her age, thus the court below committed no illegality in relying upon her age as disclosed from medical evidence as well as testimonies of her parents, which indicated her to be more than 18 years at the time of occurrence.

We in view of above admitted clinching evidence of the victim are also of the considered view that the view of the trial court acquitting the accused is reasonable and probable to which no perversity could be attached.

The leave is refused, consequently the appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.7.2021

N.S.Rathour