Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Raj Kumar S/O Dharm Singh And 02 ... on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 97 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Raj Kumar S/O Dharm Singh And 02 Others
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 9.11.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No.141 of 2018 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.141 of 2018, under Section 354, 307, 436, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri.
In respect of an incident occurred on 10.12.2017 at 5.00 pm a written report was lodged on 26.2.2018 at 14.41 O'clock stating that while the victim was collecting woods from the nearby forest area the accused outraged her modesty and also grabbed her with an intent to exploit her. On being resisted the accused also hurled abuses and extended threats. The accused thereafter fired on the victim but the bullets missed her. The hutment of the victim was burnt thereafter and 50 packets of Garlic and other household items amounting to Rs.50,000/- were got burnt. The investigation ultimately concluded with submission of chargesheet against the accused under Sections 354, 307, 436, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
The trial commenced after the case was committed to the court of sessions by the Magistrate in which documentary and oral evidence have been led. The informant (victim), who is a married lady, has been examined as PW-1, who has alleged that the accused persons with an intent to commit sexual assault and outrage her modesty assaulted her in which various stretch marks/bruises were caused to her. The family members rushed on seeing the incident and she has made various complaints to different authorities. PW-2 is the father-in-law of the victim, who has supported the prosecution case.
During the course of trial it has been found that the victim has not been medically examined and no medical report is on record. The trial court has also found that though the incident had occurred on 10.12.2017 but the FIR has been lodged after more than two months on 26.2.2018 and the delay of more than two months in lodging the FIR has not been explained. The mother-in-law, who was also allegedly a witness, has not been produced. The other eye-witness, who is sister of the husband, has also not been produced. No evidence has been produced to show that her hutment got burnt, in which various household items got destroyed. The trial court has found material contradictions in the statement of victim and since the incident itself has not been proved by producing independent witnesses, the court below has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that more than two months' delay had occasioned in lodging of FIR, which remained unexplained has also been factored in. The trial court on the basis of evaluation of evidence led in the matter 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 :- 24.2.2023
Anil
