State Of Up vs Satya Prakash S/O Than Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 36156 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of Up vs Satya Prakash S/O Than Singh on 5 November, 2024

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173226-DB
 
Court No. - 43
 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 337 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Satya Prakash S/O Than Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

1. This appeal is by the State along with an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 18.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Rape & POCSO Act)-II/ Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in P.S.T. No. 31 of 2015 (State Vs. Satya Prakash), arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Sakrauli, District Etah.

2. The prosecution case is based upon the information of the mother of the victim, who has alleged that her daughter aged about 16 years had gone to her school at 10:00 a.m. on 15.02.2014 but did not return in the evening. She tried to locate her daughter and came to know that she was seen with the accused at Agra on 17.02.2014. The accused is the distant relative of the informant. An apprehension was expressed that the victim has been enticed by the accused. With these allegations the first information report came to be lodged on 18.02.2014 as Case Crime No. 22 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. The investigation proceeded in the matter and ultimately charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, on which cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the accused. The accused denied accusation made against him and demanded trial.

3. During the course of trial, the informant has appeared as P.W.1, whereas the victim has been produced as P.W.2. Dr. Anita Kumari, who had medically examined the victim, has been produced as P.W.4. Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, Principal, Jan Kalyan Inter College, Sikrari Lalpur, Police Station Awgadh, District Etah, has been produced as P.W.5. Dr. Shripal Singh, retired A.C.M.O. has been produced as P.W.6. P.W.7 to P.W.10 are the police witnesses, whose testimony is formal in nature. On the basis of evidence led in the matter the trial court has come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Six issues have been framed by the trial court for the purposes of determination in the present case.

5. Issue No. 3 is with regard to the minority of the victim. The trial court has taken note of the statement of the victim's mother (P.W.1), in which she has alleged that she got married in 1989-90 and the victim was born nearly six years later. She has also stated that her date of birth in the school records was mentioned on approximation and there was no definite basis for recording of her date of birth in the school records. In the transfer certificate the date of birth is mentioned as 10.02.1998. The trial court has taken note of the ossification test report proved by P.W.6, according to which the victim was 17 years of age and could be even below 18 years. The trial court has noticed the statement of the victim and has come to conclusion that the date of birth of the victim recorded in the school records is not reliable, in as much as P.W.1 in her testimony has clearly explained as to when she got married and when the child was born out of her wedlock. The age of the victim has thus been determined by the trial court relying upon the testimony of P.W.1 as well as the ossification test report. It is otherwise admitted that neither any municipal record has been produced in respect of the date of birth of the victim, nor any definite basis is disclosed for recording of her date of birth in Class-I by the prosecution. The view taken by the trial court that the victim be treated as major by allowing variation of a couple of years in the radiological age is clearly a permissible view, particularly, when no other basis for determination of age is brought on record.

6. So far as the allegation of rape on the victim is concerned, the trial court has found material inconsistency in the version of the victim at the stage of investigation viz.-a-viz. her statement in Court. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has alleged that the accused along with several others have forcibly taken her in a Bolero car to Rajasthan, where she was raped by the accused. The victim also alleged that she was physically assaulted when she tried to resist. This version of the victim has found no corroboration in the medical report. Victim's allegation that she was physically assaulted also found no mention in the medical report wherein no external or internal injury on the victim has been found by P.W.4. The trial court has also noticed inherent contradiction in the version of the victim in as much as in her statement before the court she has clearly stated that accused persons took her to Agra, whereas in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is no reference of her being taken to Agra or any offence having been committed upon the victim at Agra. The medical examination report otherwise demonstrates that hymen of the victim was old torn and healed. The version of the victim that she was sexually assaulted and in that process she sustained injuries and started bleeding, etc., also found no corroboration in the medical examination report. The trial court has, therefore, not treated the victim to be a sterling witness and in view of the fact that she was apprehended on 18th morning, from a different place, in the company of someone else, has been relied upon to discredit the prosecution case.

7. Though, the learned A.G.A. submits that the findings of the trial court are perverse but on the basis of evidence produced in the trial court, we do not find any such perversity. The fact that the victim was not found minor and her testimony was otherwise not found credible are the factors that have been taken note of by the trial court to discredit the prosecution case. In our assessment the view taken by the trial court is clearly a permissible view.

8. Law is settled that ordinarily a judgment of acquittal will not be interfered with, unless perversity or illegality is shown. The scope of interference by High Court in matters of acquittal by trial court has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561. Para 39 and 40 of the judgment are relevant for the present purposes and are reproduced hereinafter:-

"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/ omission to consider material evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

9. Upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter, we find no perversity in the judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by the court concerned, inasmuch as the conclusions drawn by the Judge concerned are clearly permissible in view of the evidence placed on record. No misreading or omission of evidence is pointed out, either. It cannot be said that only the view consistent with the guilt of accused is possible from the evidence on record. We find that neither any triable issue is raised before us in this appeal nor any perversity is shown in the judgment of acquittal, 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 :- 5.11.2024

Mustaqeem.