Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Suraj Yadav @ Anand Yadav S/O Late ... on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 796 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Suraj Yadav @ Anand Yadav S/O Late Pyarelal Yadav
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 21.9.2022, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Varanasi in Special Sessions Trial No.62 of 2014 (State Vs. Suraj Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2014, under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506, 376 IPC & Sections 3/4 and 11/12 POCSO Act, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi.
As per the prosecution case the mother of the victim informed the police that she has three daughters and a son, which includes the victim, aged 16 years, who is a student of Class XIth. The accused used to intercept the victim and harass her, while she would go to attend her coaching institute. The victim for such reasons left going to the coaching and after an objection was raised the accused threatened the family of dire consequences. The report was accordingly lodged on 23.6.2014. The investigation proceeded in which the victim was found to be a minor and after recording the statement of witnesses a chargesheet was submitted against the accused under Section 354-A, 354-D, 506 IPC read with section 11/12 of the POCSO Act. Cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate and the case was committed to the court of Sessions.
The trial proceeded in which the prosecution produced the victim as PW-1, whereas the informant appeared as PW-2. The brother of the victim appeared as PW-3. Other formal witnesses including the Principal of the institution were also produced by the prosecution.
PW-1 at the stage of examination-in-chief supported the prosecution case and stated that the accused used to harass her and do obscene acts with her and also extended threats to the victim. The harassment by the accused was continuing since long. The victim, however, at the stage of her cross-examination has completed retracted from her earlier statement. The trial court has noticed that even in the examination-in-chief the victim has stated that it was the third incident of obscene act on part of the accused but details with regard to earlier incident have not been given in her statement. The statement of the victim in examination-in-chief is also found vague and as per the trial court it does not inspire confidence. In her cross-examination she has completely disowned her earlier allegation made in the examination-in-chief. The trial court on the basis of such evidence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A finding has nevertheless been returned that victim is a minor.
Learned AGA has taken us through the judgment of the court below in order to submit that the victim apparently was either won over later or she succumbed to the designs of the accused, and therefore the trial court was not justified in acquitting the accused. Learned AGA, however, does not dispute that the victim has not been re-examined on these aspects nor any suggestion is given to her that she has been won over. Learned AGA further points out that the victim in her statement has stated that she was got married with someone else in the year 2010 itself.
Though various arguments are advanced but learned State Counsel has not been able to show any perversity in the view taken by the court below. The view taken by the court below on the basis of material placed on record is clearly a permissible view and just because a different view could be taken, ordinarily, would not be a ground for this Court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. We also find that there is no corroboration of the victim's statement in the form of medical evidence, inasmuch as the victim has not been examined medically nor any medical examination has been proved.
Upon cumulative assessment of evidence led by the prosecution the court below has not found the statement of victim to be credible and has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances we find that neither any triable issue is raised before us 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 :- 2.1.2023
Anil
