Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ranjeet S/O Taresam Singh And 02 ... on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 26 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ranjeet S/O Taresam Singh And 02 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.
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 20.8.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Women Protection Act), Pilibhit, in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Ranjeet and others), arising out of Case Crime No.555 of 2017, under Section 366, 376D, 506 IPC, Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit.
As per the prosecution case the informant's wife (victim) was not traceable since 11.8.2017 and ultimately when some relatives were trying to locate her, they found her at Jahanabad - Pilibhit Crossing on 22.8.2017. The accused was reportedly nearby and was waiting for some vehicle to arrive. The informant further alleges that he was informed by the his wife that while she was going to get some medication the accused made her to sit on his motorcycle and took her to an unknown place, and on the threat of causing injury to her son subjected her to rape. The allegation is against all three accuseds, who committed rape one after the other.
Upon submission of chargesheet the court proceeded to frame charges against the accused under Section 366, 376D, 506 IPC on 1.1.2018. The accused denied the allegations made in the chargesheet and demanded trial.
At the stage of trial the prosecution in addition to the documentary evidence has produced the victim as PW-2 and the first informant as PW-1. The doctor, who examined the victim, has been produced as PW-5 and PW-7.
The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had specifically alleged commissioning of rape upon her by accused Ranjeet but during the course of trial she has exonerated him. The assertion of victim is that she was taken on a truck to different places and the offence was committed at various locations. However, details in that regard could not be disclosed by the victim in her statement. The trial court has found that the victim had not been incapacitated and in the event victim was made to travel to different places she had opportunity to raise alarm or make a complaint, which was never done.
PW-1 during trial has stated that the missing report was lodged by him on the date when his wife disappeared but no such missing report has been placed on record. It is then stated that the missing report was actually lodged on 18.8.2017 but even that was not placed on record or proved before the court. The trial court has drawn adverse inference against the prosecution for not proving the missing report. The circumstance of not making a complaint or missing report for 11 days despite disappearance of wife of the informant is also a circumstance, which has been viewed negatively. The medical examination of victim otherwise shows that she had no internal or external injury and the victim otherwise was major. The possibility of the victim having consented to join the company of the accused, thus, has not been ruled out. On the basis of assessment of evidence placed on record before the trial court it has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accuseds beyond reasonable doubt. It may also be noticed that the defence version otherwise was that there was some dispute relating to immovable property between the owner of school where PW-1 was a driver and the accused Jhamman Lal, on account of which the accused was falsely implicated to cause benefit to the school owner. Some substance has been found in the defence case also by the court below.
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 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 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
