Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ramvir S/O Jagdish And 03 Others on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 174 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ramvir S/O Jagdish And 03 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 14.12.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No.737 of 2011 (State Vs. Jagdish and others), arising out of Case Crime No.157 of 2011, under Section 363, 366A, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly.
The informant in the present case is the mother of victim, who subsequently got married to Manohar @ Palu. The victim was born out of the first wedlock of her mother. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of a direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as per which 14 year old minor daughter had gone to get some household goods in the market when the accused with an intent to outrage her modesty forcibly kidnapped her and fled in a Jeep. The informant came to know from certain other persons about the identity of the accused. The informant did not remember the registration number of Jeep. Since the FIR was not registered the informant subsequently moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The investigation proceeded in the matter and ultimately concluded with submission of chargesheet No.56 of 2011 and 56-A of 2011, under Section 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC. The victim was apparently recovered after two months.
The trial proceeded in which the victim supported the prosecution case. However, no corroboration of her allegation was found in the medical report of the doctor, as per which no external or internal injuries were found on the victim. Her age was determined to be above 18 years. Upon conclusion of trial the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he disclosed that the informant had left the victim soon after her birth and had joined the company of her second husband Manohar @ Palu. The victim was brought up by her maternal grandfather Shiv Singh. It is alleged that Shiv Singh was murdered by Manohar @ Palu and an FIR was lodged by the victim against her step father. It is also asserted that late maternal grandfather Shiv Singh had actually arranged marriage of victim with accused Mewaram and that a marriage was actually performed on 1.2.2011. This marriage was also registered on 5.2.2011. However, after the murder of Shiv Singh the victim was forced to join the company of her mother and she retracted from her initial statement in proceedings relating to investigation of case under Section 302 IPC, in respect of murder of her maternal grandfather. The victim also implicated the accused by denying the factum of marriage with Mewaram. The recovery of victim otherwise has been made after two months of the alleged incident when the victim was kidnapped. The murder of Shiv Singh happened after the marriage was solemnized by the victim with Mewaram.
The defence version set up under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has found corroboration with the statement of victim, who has been confronted with the fact with regard to lodgement of FIR by her against her own step father. The victim, however, has denied such facts. Documents in that regard have nevertheless been placed on record before the court below.
The trial court, upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. For arriving at such an opinion the court below has taken note of the fact that the marriage of victim was not only solemnized with accused Mewaram but was also got registered. The lodgement of FIR in respect of murder of victim's maternal grandfather has also been factored in. The fact that all properties belonging to victim's maternal grandfather had come to her and on account of the murder of maternal grandfather has been taken by the step father Manohar @ Palu has also been taken note of. For such reasons a finding has been returned by the court below that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, have been found to be interested witnesses and their testimony has been disbelieved after recording reasons in that regard.
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 :- 21.3.2023
Anil
