Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Devendra S/O Surat Ram on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 754 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Devendra S/O Surat Ram
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
This appeal is by the State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment and order dated 08.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Court No.-2, Firozabad in P.S.T. No. 490 of 2014 (State of U.P. Vs. Devendra), arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2014, under Sections 376, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nagla Sindhi, District Firozabad, whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
Prosecution case is that the victim while going from her maternal home to her in-law's house at Agra alongwith her younger brother met the accused Devendra, alongwith two other boys, who forcibly took her in a tempo and offered her baraf to eat, due to which she lost consciousness and then was taken to Kanpur, where she was kept for 4-5 days and after a report was lodged, the victim was left at Tundla. The investigation concluded with filing of charge-sheet against the accused under Section 342, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
During trial, the prosecution has adduced the oral testimony of P.W.-1 (victim) and two other witnesses namely, Khetpal (P.W.-3) and Veerpal (P.W.-4). Apart from the formal witnesses, the documentary evidences have also been led including the supplementary medical report, statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
In the medical examination, age of the victim has been found to be 16 years. However, it is admitted fact on record that the victim was already married to one Amar Singh (P.W.-9), whom she left after the incident.
The victim has supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, when she appeared before the court below the victim has not supported the prosecution case and has clearly stated that the statements allegedly recorded of her under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were made under the pressure of the local police and was not voluntary statement on her part. She has also stated that she was not subjected to rape and the allegation in that regard has not been supported. The medical examination otherwise did not prove existence of any injury on the victim. P.W.-9 moreover has clearly stated that the victim eloped with the accused on her own.
The trial court upon evaluation of the evidence led by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the court below is clearly a permissible view in the facts of the present case and merely because a different view could have been taken cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Neither any perversity is shown in the judgment nor any triable issue is shown to arise in the facts of the case, which may persuade this Court to accept the prayer of the State to grant leave to institute the appeal.
Prayer made for grant of leave under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is declined.
The present government appeal consequently fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
Abhishek Singh
