Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Bachchu Singh on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 477 of 2021
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Bachchu Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
Heard Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Rape & POCSO Act)-II, Etah in P.S.T. No. 130 of 2019, whereby the accused-opposite party, namely, Bachchu Singh son of Chandrasen @ Chandrabhan, has been acquitted.
The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that daughter of the informant disappeared when she had gone to dispose off the garbage from her house, at about 5:30 p.m. on 06.09.2019. When she was not found, her father lodged the FIR. She was recovered by the police 20 days thereafter. After the investigation, the accused-person named in the FIR Bachchu Singh was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
The prosecution examined the informant as PW-1, the victim as PW-2, the doctor as PW-3, the Principal of the School with regard to age of the victim as PW-4 and certain other witnesses.
It is contended on behalf of appellant that not only the victim but the other witnesses of fact supported the prosecution version in their testimony, however, judgment of acquittal has been pronounced ignoring the substantive evidence and giving undue importance to contradictions coming in oral testimony.
It is forcefully contended that she was aged about 16 years of age at the time of incident, the documentary and oral evidence given by PW-4 has not been analyzed in the light of settled law, hence, the judgment is bad in law on this ground also.
After perusal of the judgment and the lower court records, we are of the view that the trial Court has given strong and cogent reasons for disbelieving the school leaving certificate and taking into account the age as found in medical examination of the victim to be above 18 years. This is not disputed that she in her own testimony before the trial Court stated that she went to her relative (Mausi's house) and stayed there for about 5 to 6 days and that she declined to identify the accused Bachchu Singh and that she gave statement exonerating the accused Bachchu Singh and she stated her age as above 20 to 21 years at the time of the so called incident. There has been delay of four days in lodging the FIR.
Perusal of the judgment reveals that the findings of the trial Court are based on fundamental principles of law. There is nothing to show that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is based on erroneous analysis of evidence or non-existent material or is demonstrably unsustainable. In a well reasoned judgment, the trial Court noticed the material contradictions in the oral testimony of the witnesses including that of the most important testimony of the victim and also several other factors.
Considering the inconsistency, improvement, contradictions and also the fact that essential ingredients to constitute the offence charged against the accused is not found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view.
In view thereof, application (Leave to Appeal) is rejected. Consequently, government appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
Shafique
