Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ranjeet Vyas S/O Hetram Vyas on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 35 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ranjeet Vyas S/O Hetram Vyas
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.
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 28.7.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 756 of 2017 (State Vs. Ranjeet Vyas), arising out of Case Crime No.1839 of 2017, under Section 376, 328, 384 and 506 IPC, Police Station Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
The accused and the victim in the present case are cousins, who are already married. The victim is aged about 43-44 years while the accused is aged about 40 years. The prosecution case is that aunt of the informant (Mausi) lives in Ghaziabad and during the course of a marriage in Delhi her son came in contact with the victim. He gradually started visiting the victim on the pretext of seeing his flat in a nearby locality. On 16.3.2016 the accused came while the victim was at home alone. The victim offered a cup of tea to the accused and also gave him company by having his cup of tea. Soon thereafter the victim found that she lost her consciousness and when she regain consciousness she found herself naked in her bedroom and the accused was lying next to her. The victim protested and raised a grievance and also scolded the accused but he informed her that a video has been prepared of the incident and on account of threats extended that this video would be uploaded and made viral. The accused continued to subject the victim to sexual assault and also extracted money from time to time. The victim later informed her aunt (Mausi) about the conduct of her son (accused) but she too did not support her for the sake of family's respect. It is much later that the victim informed the entire incident to her husband, whereafter the application was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on the basis of which the FIR was registered. It would be worth noticing that the FIR has been registered on 23.7.2017 in respect of incident of 16.3.2016, which is after one year three months. The investigation resulted in filing of a chargesheet on which cognizance was taken by the court and the accused was charged of offence under Section 376, 328, 384 and 506 IPC.
The prosecution in order to establish its case at trial has produced the victim as PW-1 and her husband as PW-2. PW-3 is an aunt of the victim. Various other witnesses have also been produced in the matter.
The trial court has noticed the statement of PW-1, as per which she informed her husband about the incident of 16.3.2016 in the month of June, 2016, whereas the first application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad was given in June, 2017. There is thus a clear delay of about one year in making the first application to the competent authority/forum. The trial court has found that though it was alleged that some video has been prepared of the incident but no such video has been recovered during the investigation or produced at the stage of trial. The circumstance of non-filing of any complaint/application in respect of the incident for nearly one year has been viewed negatively in order to doubt the prosecution case. A categorical finding has been returned that the delay of more than one year in lodging the FIR remains unexplained. The statement of victim has also been subjected to careful scrutiny by the court below, wherein material contradictions have surfaced with regard to presence or otherwise of her children in the house at the time of commissioning of the offence. The plea of compromise arrived at between the parties at Police Station Vijay Nagar has also been doubted by the trial court. The defence version that it was on account of a dispute of tenancy that the accused has been falsely implicated is found to have some substance. A suggestion was also given that the relations were consensual and that a false case has subsequently been lodged. The statement of victim has not been found trustworthy and the prosecution case has been found to be improbable. The stand of victim at the stage of trial has otherwise been found to be at variance with her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
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 and for the reasons recorded above 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 :- 8.2.2023
Anil
