Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Jeet Singh And 2 Others on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 211 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Jeet Singh And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the court.
Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned.
This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 12.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 598 of 2011 (State Vs. Jeet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2010, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bithur, District Kanpur Nagar.
As per the prosecution version, a report was made by the victim/informant on 03.05.2010 complaining of an incident occurred at 11:30 p.m. on 23.04.2010. It was alleged that informant was waiting for returning of her husband, when the accused, a neighbor, came armed with a countrymade pistol and on the force of strength subjected her to sexual assault. Two of her Jeths (husband's elder brothers) had gone out, however third jeth was sleeping on the roof. The victim then states that she tried to end her life by consuming pesticide and was admitted in R.C. Nursing Home, Kalyanpur. The accused kept extending threats and again tried to enter the house forcibly on 02.05.2010, whereafter the FIR was lodged. Ultimately, first information report in case crime no. 105 of 2010 was registered under sections 376, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The investigation concluded with the submission of a charge-sheet under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against accused Babban Singh Kushwaha whereas section 376 I.P.C. was added in the charge-sheet against main accused Jeet Singh. The concerned court took cognizance and after framing of charge, proceeded with the trial.
The prosecution has adduced the testimony of PW-5 Dr. Anju Dubey, who had examined the victim on 4th May, 2010 and did not find any external or internal injuries on the victim. So far as the testimony of victim is concerned, she appeared as PW-1 and has supported the prosecution case. She has stated that the accused persons physically assaulted her and she sustained various injuries. She also reiterated her version in the initial report about consuming of pesticides so as to end her life.
The court below, however, has found major contradictions in the testimony of PW-1. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she consumed pesticide nearly 8 to 9 days after the incident whereas in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the statement made before the court, she claimed to have consumed pesticides in the next morning of the incident, however, neither any documents were submitted evidencing admission of victim in the hospital nor the medical report suggested commissioning of any offence or consumption of pesticide by the victim. The delay of nearly ten days in making of the report has also not been explained. Though the victim stated that she remained hospitalized for 3 to 4 days but none of the records of the hospital have been produced during trial or furnished to the investigating authority. The doctor has also opined that no opinion with regard to the commissioning of sexual assault on the victim can be given. On the basis of such evaluation of oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the court below has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned A.G.A. has taken us through the judgment of the court below in order to show inconsistency therein but we find no such inconsistency or perversity in the judgment of the court below.
We have carefully examined the judgment of the court below and upon its examination, we find that the view taken by the court below is clearly a permissible view, in the facts of the case, and just because a different view could be taken would ordinarily not be a ground for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. In such circumstances, we find that neither any triable issue is raised before us in this appeal nor any perversity is shown, which may persuade this Court to grant leave to assail the judgment of acquittal. Prayer made by the State for grant of leave is, accordingly, refused and the appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023
Shafique
