Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ramesh Chandra S/O Ram Prasad on 11 August, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162750-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 366 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra S/O Ram Prasad
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
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 11.1.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6 (Rape and POCSO Act), Kasganj, in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2018 (State Vs. Ramesh Chandraj), arising out of Case Crime No. 728 of 2017, under Section 376, 511 IPC & Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj.
First information report in the present case has been lodged on the basis of a direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as per which the informant's 07 years old minor daughter was enticed by the accused on 28.5.2017 and took the victim in a pit where he attempted sexual assault upon her. On hearing the scream of the victim the informant, his wife and other neighbours arrived and the accused fled. On enquiry from the victim she informed that accused had given her Rs.10/- and had taken her in a pit near maize field. The informant has alleged that unless family members of the victim had intervened, the accused would have succeeded in committing the offence of sexual assault. Investigation proceeded in the matter and ultimately chargesheet came to be submitted against the accused, who is a 65 years old person and was engaged in collecting milk from the villagers including the father of the victim and her uncle. On the basis of chargesheet submitted in the matter on 29.11.2017, the charges were framed against the accused, who denied the allegation and demanded trial.
In the facts of the present case, the only material to implicate the accused is the statement of victim, who has appeared as PW-2. Informant has appeared as PW-1, who was admittedly not present at the time of incident, as such not much importance can be given to his statement. PW-7 is the teacher, who has proved the minority of the victim and apart from the above, all other witnesses are formal in nature. There is apparently no medical report, which may corroborate the allegation of prosecution.
In the facts of the present case, the incident although is alleged to have occurred on 28.5.2017 but the letter to police has been sent on 3.6.2017 and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed on 5.6.2017. The court below has taken note of the delayed response in lodging the complaint with the police. On the merits of the claim the trial court has examined the testimony of the victim in which there are material contradictions, noticed by the court below. At one stage the victim has stated that her mother had not returned from the field, while at another place she was stated that she was at home. Though the prosecution case is that the parents and the neighbours had arrived at hearing the scream of the victim but none of the witnesses in that regard are produced. There are also contradictory versions with regard to the manner in which the accused allegedly took the victim, inasmuch as the accused otherwise used to visit the house for collecting milk but at the point of time when the victim was enticed it is alleged that he had not come for collecting milk. In the statement of the informant there is no assertion that on hearing of screams he came to the place of incident, rather he arrived on his own.
The trial court has also noticed the defence of the accused, as per which he had given advance amount to the informant and his brother for purchase of milk amounting to Rs.44,000/- but the milk was not supplied on account of which a dispute had arisen between the informant and the accused and merely with an intent to coerce the accused not to press his claim for refund of the amount that this false incident has been concocted. On behalf of defence three witnesses have been produced, who have proved the dispute between the informant and the accused on account of non-supply of milk despite receiving advance from him. On the basis of evidence so led in the matter the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has, accordingly, acquitted the accused.
We have been taken through the judgment by the learned AGA, who submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that the findings returned by the court below are perverse.
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 :- 11.8.2023
Anil
