Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Vikash Soni And 2 Others on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114220-DB
Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 231 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Vikash Soni And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
Application is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned.
This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 15.7.2022, passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act (Ananya), Jaunpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 134 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikas Soni & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 530 of 2018, under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur.
As per the prosecution case, informant is a poor lady, who lives with her husband and children in a rented house. Her daughter (victim), aged about 17 years, used to visit her neighbour, and during the course of time, she developed friendship with the accused. On 9.6.2018 at about 11.00-12.00 in the morning the victim was called by the accused to the temple for solemnizing marriage and by offering her some intoxicant in the Cold Drink she was taken by a Bus and taken to different places. The application was moved to the police but FIR was not lodged and various Panchayat etc. were held. Ultimately the victim came to know that the accused is getting married with someone else. It is thereafter that the FIR has been lodged. On the basis of investigation conducted in the matter, ultimately a chagesheet was submitted, whereafter the trial commenced.
Charges have been framed against the accused under Section 376, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act. The informant has appeared as PW-1 and has supported the prosecution case. The victim has also been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Medical report is also on record, which does not demonstrate existence of any external or internal injuries on the victim. The prosecution case in substance is that on the false pretext of marriage, the accused formed physical relations and later refused to marry the victim.
The trial court has taken note of the statement of the doctor, who examined the victim and has appeared as PW-4, as per whom there were no external or internal injuries and that the age of the victim was found to be 18 years. As per the prosecution, the offence has been committed between 9.6.2018 to 24.9.2018. No FIR has, however, been lodged during this period. The FIR for the first time is lodged on 3.10.2018. There is no plausible explanation put forth by the prosecution for such delay. The victim has been found to be major and since the medical report does not support existence of any injury etc., therefore, trial court has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has, accordingly, acquitted the accused. The trial court has also taken note of the statement of victim, which contains various embellishments, and her version that she was intoxicated or was not in a position to raise a protest has been doubted. At the stage of cross-examination, the victim has not supported the prosecution case and she has stated that no untoward act has been committed upon her by 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 :- 24.5.2023
Anil
