State Of U.P. vs Raj Kumar And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10376 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 448 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Raj Kumar And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

Heard Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2020 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Amroha in Special Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2018, whereby the accused-opposite parties, namely, Rajkumar and Sonu, have been acquitted.

The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that accused Sonu and Rajkumar, who were well known to the family, came to victim's house on 23.01.2015 at about 2:30 in the after noon. The brother of the victim Shivam was locked in another room on gun point and thereafter Sonu committed rape on her in another room and the other accused Rajkumar made the video of the act. On the basis of that video, she was sexually exploited several times. On 29.09.2017, she was taken on a motorcycle by accused Sonu to her house and proposed marriage with her and Sonu committed rape on her at that time again. Accused Sonu put undesirable pressure on her to marry against her will and the matter was reported to the superior police authorities on 26.02.2018.

The prosecution examined the victim as PW-1, her father as PW-2, rest are the formal witnesses and the doctor.

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.

The trial Court took into account a very long and unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, the wholly inconsistent and contradictory statements given by the victim and also the medical evidence. As per admitted fact, the victim was more than 18 years of age. Other witnesses of fact were also not found credible by the trial Court.

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