Allahabad High Court
Devi Charan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83339
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 24 of 2024
Appellant :- Devi Charan
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Janardan Prasad Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Devi Charan-Complainant has filed this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 21.10.2023 passed by Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 1531 of 2021, whereby the respondent no.2-accused has been acquitted of the charges arising out of Case Crime No. 252 of 2021, under Sections 452, 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh.
Briefly, the facts leading to the appeal are that on the basis of the complaint given by appellant, a case crime no. 252 of 2021 was registered under Sections 452, 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, wherein it was alleged that on 7.5.2021 when complainant alongwith his wife had gone to a doctor for getting medicine for his elder daughter, his younger daughter was alone at home. At around 1:00 p.m. when his daughter was washing utensils then respondent no.2-Khillan S/o Bhagwati Prasad entered the house and caught hold her daughter from behind, but when she raised alarm, he ran away. After registration of the case, the investigation was carried out and the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed against the respondent no.2 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 452, 354 I.P.C., Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(V) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Special Court, Aligarh upon considering the record of the case, framed the charges against the accused vide order dated 13.10.2021, who in response denied the charges and claimed the trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined five witnesses namely, P.W.-1, Devi Charan (complainant), P.W.-2 victim, P.W.-3 Manoj Kumar, P.W.-4 Shivpratap Singh (Investigating Officer) and P.W.-5 Guddi Devi. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication, as according to him, on 21.11.2015 he had given a complaint against the complainant in respect of discharge of water in the drain channel, therefore, the complainant had falsely implicated him. The trial court after examining the evidence on record proceeded to acquit the accused through the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2023. Hence, this appeal.
Learned counsel for appellant-complainant has argued that prosecution witnesses particularly, P.W.-2 (victim) had proved the occurrence dated 7.5.2021, but the trial court has not carefully examined the said evidence while acquitting the accused vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2023. According to learned counsel, the presence of the accused at the house of the complainant is not only described by the victim, but her evidence is further supported by the parents of the victim, whereas the trial court has given weightage to the minor discrepancies in their evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal calls for interference by this Court.
After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that trial court has carefully examined the prosecution evidence while observing that in the initial version by P.W.-2 (victim) contained in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., no allegation relating to attempt to rape has been made by her against the accused, and similarly, the complainant has also not mentioned it in the complaint to the police. The trial court has further analyzed the deposition of P.W.-5 while holding that the victim never informed her mother about the attempt to rape by accused, and further, the occurrence took place on 7.5.2021, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after a long unexplained delay of 12 days. Apart from the improvements noticed in the testimony of P.W.-2-victim, the trial court has also found inconsistencies in the statements of her parents P.W.-1 and P.W.-5. A reading of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.10.2023 would show that the view adopted by the trial court in acquitting the accused is a possible view. By now, it is settled law, that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused is to be adopted, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.10.2023 passed by Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Ballia is based upon the correct appreciation of evidence on record.
Resultantly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
P.S.Parihar
