Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Prateek Bhaseen S/O Kuldeep ... on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 86 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Prateek Bhaseen S/O Kuldeep Bhaseen And 05 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 22.11.2022, passed by the court below in Sessions Trial No.42 of 2014 (State Vs. Prateek Bhaseen and others), arising out of Case Crime No.529 of 2012, under Sections 328, 504, 506, 376 IPC, 3/4 of POCSO Act & Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Brahampuri, District Meerut.
Informant in the present case belongs to Scheduled Caste and at the time of lodgement of FIR was 20 years of age. She has alleged that about 4 year back she came in contact with the accused and became friends with him. The victim was then a minor. It is alleged that in February, 2010 on the false pretext of marriage the accused established physical relations with the victims, which continued for nearly three years, but later he has denied to marry the informant. The informant further came to know that the act of accused in ignoring the victim was with the connivance of his family members, who were also implicated in the matter. On the basis of investigation conducted in the matter, ultimately a chargesheet was submitted against the accused Prateek Bhaseen and four other family members.
The trial proceeded in which the victim has been produced as PW-1. The victim has clearly admitted that she was on friendly terms with accused and on the pretext of marriage physical relations were formed between them in the year 2010. The family members were also introduced who agreed to solemnization of marriage but later they backed out and misbehaved with the victim. Reference is also made to an incident in which informant (victim) came to the house of the accused where she was given some intoxicant and she became unconscious and was later admitted to a hospital.
The victim in her deposition has admitted that no caste specific words were spoken to her by the family members of the accused. The victim otherwise has not fully supported the prosecution case and there were various contradictions noticed in her testimony. The trial court has also noticed that there are subsequent improvements and embellishment in the stand of the victim over what was stated earlier by her.
The trial court has found that the incident of administering intoxicant to the victim on account of which she had to be hospitalized was not proved. No external or internal injuries have been found on the victim. There is no independent corroboration of the case set up by the prosecutrix that it was on a false pretext of marriage that physical relations were formed. The relationship otherwise continued for several years. The court below has returned a definite finding that evidence has not been led to show that the accused acted with a fraudulent intent from the very beginning so as to form physical relations with the victim. Upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter the trial court has also come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused 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.
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
