State Of U.P. vs Santosh Kumar Maurya
2022 Latest Caselaw 20717 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 16 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Maurya
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

In view of the office report delay in filing of the criminal appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court, and therefore the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing of criminal appeal is condoned.

This appeal is by the State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 30.9.2019, passed by Ananya Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Basti in Special Session Trial No.158 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar Maurya) arising out of Case Crime No.271 of 2001, under Section 376 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Basti.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that while informant's daughter had gone to the fields at about 5.00 pm she was insulted by the accused and when the victim protested the accused person fled seeing others arriving at the spot. Subsequently allegation of rape was also introduced. Since the victim is from scheduled caste the offence under Section 3(1)(12) of the SC/ST Act have also been added. The trial proceeded wherein the victim has been produced as PW-2. The victim has stated that she was forcibly raped by the accused, who forcibly took her from agricultural field.

After examining the statement of the victim as well as other prosecution witnesses including PW-6 the court below has found material contradiction in the statement of witnesses with regard to the manner of commissioning of offence and also the place of the occurrence itself. The doctor has been produced as PW-3, who has opined that there were no external or internal injuries on the body of the victim. The hymen was found ruptured and no semen is found. Age of the victim has been determined as 18-19 years.

Learned AGA has pointed out that semen has been found at item 3 sent to the Forensic Laboratory and therefore the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In para 21 the court below has clearly noticed the fact that the semen was allegedly found on the Salwar, whereas no such semen has been found on it as per the Forensic Laboratory Report. The colour of the undergarments recovered at the time of recovery memo and at the time of examination by the Forensic Laboratory are distinct. The court below has further observed that no material has been produced to show that the offence was committed for the reason that the victim belongs to scheduled caste community.

Having examined the judgment of the court below, at length, we find that the view taken by the court below is clearly a permissible view in the facts of the case. Law is otherwise settled that if the view taken by the court below is a permissible view the judgment of acquittal would not be interfered with only because a distinct view is possible in the matter. We further find that neither any triable issue is raised nor any perversity is shown, which may persuade to grant liberty to the State to challenge the judgment passed by the court below. Prayer made for grant of leave is, accordingly, refused and the appeal, consequently, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

Anil