State Of U.P. vs Jitendra Kumar S/O Late Chhedi Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 19506 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 91 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar S/O Late Chhedi Lal
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

Ref. Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application

Heard.

Cause shown for delayed filing of the present appeal is sufficient. Delay is, accordingly, condoned.

Application stands allowed.

Ref. Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application & Appeal

This appeal is by the State alongwith an application to grant leave to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused respondent, dated 18.07.2022, passed by the Additional Session Judge/Addl. Judge (POCSO), Court No.7, Kaushambi in Special Trial No. 12 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Jitendra Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.391 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

Prosecution case is that the accused respondent kidnapped informant's daughter aged 15 years, who also took Rs.5,000/- cash and silver anklet of 10 tola with her. The victim has been recovered and in her statement she has not supported the prosecution case and stated that she had gone with the accused on her own freewill and that she has not been subjected to any untoward incident. The victim has also been medically examined in which no mark of injury or rape has been found on her and her hymen has been found intact. The accused otherwise is distantly related to the victim.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the victim was only 12 years old and had been called by the accused which itself demonstrates commissioning of offence under section 363 IPC.

Although in the examination-in-chief the victim has stated that she was asked by the accused to meet near his house but in the cross examination she has taken a definite stand that she had gone with the accused on her own freewill. No mark of injury on the victim has been found in the medical examination. The doctor has clearly opined that offence of rape is not shown to have been committed upon the victim. In the medical examination the age of the victim has been found to be 15-16 years. It is these background that the accused has been acquitted by granting him benefit of doubt by the trial court. The view taken by the trial court upon evaluation of evidence is a permissible view. Neither any illegality or perversity is shown in the judgement of the trial court nor any triable issue is raised, which may require interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the application to grant leave for instituting the present appeal is rejected. The appeal is also dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.12.2022

Ashok Kr.