Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Shajar S/O Umar on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 532 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Shajar S/O Umar
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
This is a Government Appeal filed alongwith an application to grant leave to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.5.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.3, Amroha in Special Sessions Trial No.430 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shajar), arising out of Case Crime No.303 of 2020, Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, whereby accused respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 376(2) Jha IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
It transpires that a first information report was lodged by the father of the victim on 11.7.2020 at 8.25 pm in respect of an offence committed 4-5 months back against the victim by the accused respondent. The victim in the present case was 14 years of age at the time of commissioning of the offence.
At the very outset, it would be worth noticing that victim was produced before the Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has not supported the prosecution version and has denied that any offence of the kind has been committed against her by the accused respondent. The investigation proceeded in which it was found that the victim was pregnant and ultimately upon conclusion of investigation a chargesheet was submitted against the accused. Cognizance was taken and the trial was committed to the court of sessions. The prosecution in order to establish the charge has adduced five witnesses. PW-1, who is the victim, although has supported the prosecution story in her examination-in-chief but has not supported such version during the cross examination. Her statement at the stage of cross-examination is similar to stand taken in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically denied the accused of having committed the offence. PW-3 is the mother of the victim, who in her examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution version but has turned hostile at the stage of cross-examination. Father has appeared as PW-2 and has supported the prosecution story but the court below has found his statement not to be credible and reliable as there are various contradictions in his statement. PW-3 in the cross-examination, however, has stated that no offence of the kind has been committed by the accused against her daughter.
It is on the strength of above statements and the evidence adduced and the fact that prosecutrix herself has not supported the plea of rape against her by the accused respondent the trial court has acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. Although learned AGA has urged that the judgment and order of the court below is perverse but no such perversity or illegality in the judgment has been indicated to us. The view taken by the trial court is clearly a permissible view in the facts of the case. In such circumstances merely because it is urged that a different view may be taken on the basis of same set of evidence an interference in the present appeal would not be warranted. We are otherwise of the view that the view taken by the trial court is based upon correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, which requires no interference. Prayer made by the State for grant of leave to prefer appeal is, therefore, refused.
Government appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 12.9.2022
Anil
