Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Vikash S/O Rohtash Abd Another on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 29 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Vikash S/O Rohtash Abd Another
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 16.4.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No.1, Baghpat, in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2016 (State Vs. Vikash) and Sessions Trial No.118 of 2017 (State Vs. Sandip), arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2015, under Section 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Baleni, District Baghpat, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted after returning a finding that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution case is that two accused Vikas and Sandeep grabbed the informant while she had gone to attend nature's call at 5.30 in the evening and by extending threat of a firearm subjected her to rape. Ultimately a chargesheet was submitted in the matter of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The accused have been charged of offences under Section 376 and 506 IPC. The charges were denied and the accused demanded trial.
The victim has appeared as PW-1 during the trial and has supported the prosecution case. She has explained the manner in which the offence itself was committed upon her. The doctor, who has examined the victim, has been produced as PW-2 and she has stated that there were no signs of injury on the victim. The victim is a mother of two sons, aged 9 years and 7 years. The husband of the victim has died about 5 years back. The prosecution also produced formal witnesses in the form of Investigating Officer etc.
At the stage of recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has clearly stated that on 19.1.2013 the uncle of accused was mercilessly beaten by SO Ahivaran Singh and SI Rashid Ali Khan, in respect of which a complaint was filed before the concerned Magistrate, who had summoned these persons. It is alleged that on account of pressure exerted by SO Ahivaran Singh and in collusion with Village Pradhan Sanjay and one Anil he has been falsely implicated. It has also been pointed out during the course of trial that the victim had been coming to the court alongwith relatives of the village pradhan.
The statement of victim has been recorded in which she has stated that the offence of rape was committed by the accused by taking her to Sugarcane field and though it is alleged that she was ill-treated and dragged also, but neither any scratch nor any injury mark has been found on her. The fact that no protest was raised by victim has also been noticed by the court. The further fact that no internal or external injury has been found on the victim is also a circumstance, which has been noticed by the court concerned.
On behalf of defence DW-1 Indrapal has also been produced, who has supported the defence case, as per which the Station House Officer Ahivaran Singh had been summoned by the concerned Magistrate in respect of an incident relating to torture of the uncle of the accused Rohtash.
Upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case, on the basis of evidence led in the matter, beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been observed that the victim after death of her husband was residing with one Mangeram Naee and on his instigation a false and frivolous complaint has been lodged to protect the police personnel, who were implicated in a matter.
The facts, as have been recited in the judgment of the court below, are not disputed. What is urged by learned AGA is that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated and the statement of victim could not be ignored.
We have perused the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below and we find that elaborate reasons are given to discard the testimony of victim after noticing the relevant facts and circumstances. A specific finding has been returned that statement of victim is not trustworthy. We do not find any perversity or error in the finding returned by the court below in that regard. We also find that the view taken by the court below is 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
