Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Vilas Pasi S/O Dharmpal Pasi on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169966-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 386 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Vilas Pasi S/O Dharmpal Pasi
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 03.02.2023, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in Case No.202 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Vilas Pasi), arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)Cha IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
A written report appears to have been given to the concerned police station on 16.08.2014 by the informant, stating that his daughter aged 17 years has been enticed on the false pretext of marriage by the accused on 09.06.2014 at about 08.00 pm and the minor daughter was subjected to sexual assault over a period of one month. The FIR, however, was not registered initially, though a report was made to the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi and ultimately an FIR came to be registered in the matter on 12.12.2014. The investigation proceeded in the matter and ultimately charge sheet has been submitted under section 363, 366, 376(2)Cha IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act.
In addition to the documentary evidence the prosecution has produced the informant as PW-1, whereas the victim has been produced as PW-2. The doctor, who had medically examined the victim, has been produced as PW-3. The medical report as well as supplementary medical report marked as Ka.3 and Ka.4 have been proved by the doctor. The Principal of the primary institution has been produced as PW-4 in order to prove the age of the victim. The radiologist, who conducted the x-ray, has been produced as PW-5 and has proved his report (Ka.6).
The informant has supported the prosecution case. He has stated that during summer the victim was enticed by the accused at 08.00pm on the false pretext of marriage and she was sexually assaulted. PW-2 has also supported the prosecution case as also in her statement made under section 164 Cr.P.C. The court below has examined the evidence on the aspect of age of victim and relying upon the school records which have been duly proved, her date of birth has been determined as 15.09.1997 and, therefore, on the date of occurrence of incident she was below 18 years of age.
The court below has elaborately considered the delay in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the incident occurred on 16.08.2014, whereas the FIR ultimately came to be lodged on 12.12.2014. The statement of PW-1 has been noticed as per which a complaint was made on 14.07.2014 but no FIR was lodged at that stage. The court below has, therefore, come to the conclusion that delay in lodging the FIR has not been adequately explained.
The site plan has also been noticed in which place of occurrence is the village Ganpa whereas PW-1 in his statement has stated that the victim has been enticed from village Bhelkha. Contradiction has thus been noticed on the aspect with regard to place of occurrence. The evidence of doctor has also been examined as per which there were no external or internal injuries found on the victim and no dead or alive spermatozoa was found, either. The statement of victim has also been found contradictory at different stages of proceedings, inasmuch as the victim has alleged that she was dropped at her house by the accused after a month, whereas such statement has been controverted by the victim during her statement in court. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she was in touch with the accused for the last two years and in statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she had gone on her own and stayed as husband and wife with the accused and it was only later that the father of the victim lodged the report. After analyzing the evidence on record the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish 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 :- 23.8.2023
Ashok Kr.
