State Of U.P. vs Raju S/O Ratan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 19507 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Raju S/O Ratan Singh
 
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 11.07.2022, passed by the Additional Session Judge/Addl. Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Bulandshahr in Special Case/Trial No.9 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Raju), arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2013, under Sections 377/511, 323 IPC and 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station B. B. Nagar, District Bulandshahr.

Prosecution case is that informant's younger brother/victim aged 15-16 years is deaf and dumb and has been subjected to offence under section 377 IPC read with section 6 of POCSO Act. The FIR was registered and after investigation concluded with submission of charge sheet the trial commenced.

The trial court has noticed that although the victim was deaf and dumb but expert evidence as was warranted by virtue of section 119 of the Evidence Act has not been led by the prosecution. No statement of victim has otherwise been recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The trial court has noticed that although injury exists on the victim but possibility of it having been caused in some other manner or even causing it accidentally could not be ruled out. No sperm etc. has otherwise been found on anus of the victim in the pathological report. PW-1 has also not supported the prosecution case. None of the prosecution witnesses have otherwise claimed to have seen the incident. On the basis of materials placed on record the court below has come to conclusion that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused respondent. Moreover, it transpires that during the pendency of trial the victim has died in the year 2017.

Although learned counsel for the State takes us through the judgment and submits that the appeal raises triable issues since the medical evidence did support the commissioning of offence but we are not impressed by the argument in view of the materials available on record. We find that the doctor has clearly opined that the injuries on the victim could have been caused accidentally or for other reasons and no other evidence in the form of corroboration has been produced by the prosecution to support its case. The view taken by the trial court is, therefore, a permissible view on the facts of the case. We do not find any triable issue to arise in the facts of the present case, 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.