State Of U.P. vs Ram Autar S/O Balwan Singh Lodhi
2024 Latest Caselaw 36379 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Ram Autar S/O Balwan Singh Lodhi on 6 November, 2024

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173601-DB
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 883 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Ram Autar S/O Balwan Singh Lodhi
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

1. This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 23.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Special Case No. 103 of 2016 (State Vs. Ram Autar) arising out of Case Crime No.164 of 2016 under Sections 376, 392, 452, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Jalalpur, District Hamirpur.

2. The informant in the present case is the husband of the victim, who claims that on 21.07.2016 he had left behind his wife and had gone to field at 10:00 A.M. in the morning. His wife was alone at the house. The victim had locked door from inside. The accused came and knocked the door and when she opened the door the accused entered in the house and by extending threat of life to her husband, the accused committed rape upon the informant's wife. The accused had a fire arm and snatched the Mangalsutra worn by the victim. Though, the victim shouted but none came to her rescue. No complaint was lodged on account of fear of social prestige but ultimately the F.I.R. was lodged on 24.07.2016 as Case Crime No. 164 of 2016 under Sections 376, 392, 452, 506 I.PC. The investigation was concluded with submission of a charge sheet in the aforesaid Sections against the accused-opposite party upon which, cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charges against the accused-opposite party in the aforesaid Sections and the trial commenced after the accused denied the accusations.

3. During trial, the informant has appeared as P.W.1, while victim has been produced as P.W.2. P.W.3 is a formal witness, who has proved the chik F.I.R. P.W.4 is Dr. Poonam Sachan, who had medically examined the victim and found no external or internal injuries on the victim. P.W.5 is a formal witness being investigating officer of the case. In addition to the oral evidence the prosecution has also placed on record various documentary evidence in the form of written report; statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C; medical examination report as well as F.S.L. report. The above evidence was confronted to the accused-opposite party, who claims that he has been falsely implicated and that on a previous occasion, the Devrani of the victim also lodged a similar false report in which a final report was submitted. It is also alleged that inter se between the parties a previous complaint lodged under Section 387, 504 I.P.C. has also resulted in submission of closure report.

4. The trial Court has evaluated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, which has resulted in acquittal of the accused-opposite party vide Judgement and order of acquittal dated 23.07.2024. Thus aggrieved, the State is before us along with an application for grant of leave to challenge the Judgement and order of acquittal.

5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the conclusion and findings returned by the Court of Sessions is contrary to the weight of evidence on record and the fact that victim has been consistent in implicating the accused at different stages of proceedings has been overlooked. It is also submitted that mere fact that medical examination does not support the allegation of rape cannot be conclusive in such circumstances, particularly when the medical examination has been conducted after four days.

6. We have heard Sri Vinod Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the Judgement and order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions.

7. In the facts of the present case, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 21.07.2016. It transpires that the place of occurrence is the house of the informant, which situates in the agricultural field. The victim alleges that though she raised alarm but none responded and on the threat of fire arm she was raped by the accused.

8. Admittedly, the incident occurred on 21.07.2016 but the F.I.R. has been lodged after three days i.e. on 24.07.2016. There is no independent witness of the incident and none has seen the accused either entering or exiting the house of the informant. The medical examination of the victim also shows no signs of external or internal injury which may corroborate the allegation made by the victim. The trial Court has analysed the testimony of the victim and has not found her sterling witness in view of the following facts and circumstances:-

(I) The Devrani of the victim had also lodged a case of rape against a person, whose sister was allegedly raped by the Devar of the victim. In that case, ultimately a closure report was submitted. It has also come in evidence that a case was also lodged by the victim under Sections 387, 504 I.P.C. against the same accused, which also resulted in submission of a closure report. From these two material, the trial Court formed an inference that there existed prior enmity between the parties and the victim's family was habitual in falsely implicating persons.

(II) Though, it is alleged that the accused-opposite party had committed rape and also snatched the Mangalsutra of the victim but neither Mangalsutra has been recovered nor any details with regard to the purchase of Mangalsutra has been furnished during trial. None of the clothes worn by the victim were made available to the Investigating Officer which could have constituted evidence in support of the plea set up by the prosecutrix.

(III) No recovery of fire arm allegedly used for extending threats by the accused to the victim was made.

(IV) There was no reason why prompt report was not lodged and the delay in lodging of the report remains unexplained as a result of which important evidence which could have been collected at the proximate point of time was lost.

(V) Though a D.N.A. report was produced but such report also could not conclusively established the involvement of the accused although semen was found on the vaginal slides and the petticoat of the victim which did not match with the accused.

9. 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 is a married lady and is mother of two children 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. Further, we find that in the absence of there being any corroboration and strained relations between the parties on account of previous litigation etc. the inference drawn by the Court of Sessions that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt is clearly a permissible view just because a different view could be taken in the matter would ordinarily not be a ground for this Court to interfere in the judgement and order of acquittal.

10. 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."

11. 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 :- 6.11.2024

S.Ali