Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Kishan Lal @ Lalaram S/O Hoti Singh on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 70 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Kishan Lal @ Lalaram S/O Hoti Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 19.11.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Bulandshahar, in Sessions Trial No. 818 of 2018 (State Vs. Kishan Lal @ Lalaram), arising out of Case Crime No.169 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376, 323, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar.
As per the prosecution case the victim lost her husband about 5 years back. She was living with her two minor children and a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid to her under the Farmers Insurance Scheme. It is alleged that accused developed interest in the victim and started visiting her and persuaded her to part with the amount on the assurance that he would get a higher interest. The amount was utilized by the accused and when the victim asked for its return, the accused on 15.08.2018 at about 8.00 PM forcibly took her to a different room and subjected her to offence under Section 376 IPC. The victim was also physically assaulted and her clothes were torn. On raising alarm certain villagers including Harish Giri and Neeraj Giri came on the spot and saw the accused fleeing in the battery light. Threats were extended by the accused. On the basis of investigation conducted in the matter, a charge-sheet was ultimately submitted under Sections 452, 376, 323, 506, 406 IPC. The charges were framed and as the accusations were denied the trial commenced. During the course of trial the doctor, who had medically examined the victim, has been produced as PW-2. In her opinion, the victim sustained no external or internal injuries and even on the swab prepared the pathological report does not support the commissioning of rape. The victim has appeared as PW-1 and as against her initial version that she has two minor children, she deposed that she has four children and not two. The victim has explained the manner in which the offence was committed. The trial court has found material contradictions in her version, inasmuch as the number of children was incorrectly disclosed; the children were allegedly sleeping on a different cot and despite the commotion they did not wake up; the daughter of victim has, however, come up with a different stand, as per which one of the children was on the cot sleeping with the victim. The trial court has also taken note of the fact that while accused was in jail the victim had gone to meet him. Documents in that regard have been produced during the course of trial. No reasons have been assigned for the victim to have gone to jail to meet the accused, who has committed offence of rape upon her. This circumstance has been found unusual on the part of the victim. The allegation that victim was physically assaulted has also not found corroboration in the form of medical report, wherein no injuries have been found on the victim.
The trial court upon evaluation of evidence brought on record has, therefore, opined that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been observed that there apparently was monetary dispute between the accused and the victim, on account of which the accused has been implicated. After referring to a catena of judgments cited during the course of trial, the trial court has ultimately concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
Though various submissions are raised but we find that the view taken by the court below is clearly a permissible view, in view of the evidence brought on record, 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 :- 13.2.2023
Anil/Raziq Ali
