Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Yunish And 2 Others on 24 May, 2024
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94292-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 125 of 2024
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Yunish And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay in filing the present appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the present appeal.
3. Application stands allowed.
Ref: Appeal
4. This appeal has been filed by the State along with application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2014 (State Vs. Yunish and others) arising out of case crime no. 69 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 420, 376-D IPC and Section 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act.
5. As per the prosecution, the victim aged about 16 years has been enticed by the accused Yunish at 3 p.m. on 1.4.2014. It is alleged that his mother Maya Devi and son Rahul saw accused taking victim (daughter of the informant) in the bus at Gorha Bridge. The bus was going from Kasganj to Soron. Accused Akil S/o Bundi Khan and Pappu S/o Munshi Khan allegedly helped the accused Yunish. When accused Akil and Pappu were returning informant's mother asked them why did they sent her granddaughter on the bus, then they abused her and left for their home. When the informant came back after cutting fodder, his mother told him to bring the victim, who had gone with accused Yunish in the bus. The informant found that the victim had taken Rs. 2 lacs cash and jewellery, kept in the house, with her. On the basis of such allegation the FIR was lodged under Sections 363, 366 IPC as case crime no. 69 of 2014. The age of the victim has been mentioned as 16 year. Investigation ultimately concluded with submission of charge sheet against the accused, whereafter charges were framed against them under Sections 363, 366, 420, 504 IPC. Charges were also framed against accused Yunish under Section 376-D IPC read with Section 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act on 12.4.2014.
6. Informant has been produced during trial as P.W-1 who has supported the prosecution case. It is alleged that the victim left along with Rs. 2 lacs cash as well as jewellery. Grandmother of the victim has also supported the prosecution case. Victim has been produced as P.W-5. She has alleged that the accused came and informed her that her father has met with an accident and therefore, she should immediately rush with them. The victim took all the money, jewellery etc. and left along with the accused who later took her money and some substance was administered to her on account of which she became unconscious.
7. During the course of trial, age of victim has been determined. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has disclosed her age as 19 years. The High School Certificate of the victim has been produced by the defence (D.W-1)) in which her date of birth has been shown as 18.6.1997 which is above 18 years. In the medico legal report also the victim has been found major. Relying upon the evidence in that regard the trial court has come to the conclusion that the victim was above 18 years on the date of incident. The finding of the trial court, in this regard is based upon appreciation of evidence on record which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.
8. The trial court has evaluated the evidence on record and has found that the victim left her house along with cash and jewellery in a public bus. She travelled with the accused to different places and no protest of any kind was made by her. The testimony of the grandmother has also not been accepted by the trial court as her version was found improbable. The fact that victim left her house with cash amount of Rs. 2 lacs and jewellery with the accused and travelled by public transport vehicle without raising any protest is relied upon by the trial court as a circumstance to doubt the prosecution version, inasmuch as possibility of victim joining the company of accused voluntarily, could not be ruled out. No external or internal injury has otherwise been found in the medical examination of victim. Although, it is alleged that entire amount was distributed between accused persons but in the investigation no such evidence has been collected or exhibited during the tirial. Various shortcomings in the investigation have also been noticed by the trial court. The other prosecution witness (younger brother of the victim) has also been produced and his testimony has also been disbelieved.
9. Having examined the evidence on record, we find that the view taken by the trial court to doubt the veracity of the prosecution case cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The view taken by the trial court 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 :- 24.5.2024
M. Tarik
