Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Laidete S/O Suresh Singh on 8 November, 2024
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175497-DB
Court No. - 43
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 900 of 2024
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Laidete S/O Suresh Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar 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 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge/ F.T.C.-Ist, Etah in Session Trial No. 177 of 2016 (State Vs. Ram Laidete), arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2012, under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Baghwala, District Etah.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the victim (informant) was residing in her maternal grand mother's village since her childhood, and on the false of promise of marriage the accused established physical relations. On the pretext of mutual love between them the accused repeatedly committed rape on the victim. The victim resisted the act on the ground that prior to marriage forming of physical relations is immoral and legally impermissible, but the accused on the promise of marriage prevailed upon in forcing him upon the victim. The victim conceived and was carrying pregnancy of four months. When she asked for marriage with the accused, he denied, whereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 376, 504 I.P.C. On the conclusion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 376, 420, 504 I.P.C. The charges were framed against the accused, who denied it and demanded trial.
3. The victim has appeared as P.W.1 in the present case, whereas, her father has appeared as P.W.2. The mother of the victim has appeared as P.W.3. Dr. Shashi Mehta and Dr. N. P. Singh, who had medically examined the victim and took her X-ray etc., have been produced as P.W.5 and P.W.6. Other prosecution witnesses are formal police personnel. Various documentary evidence in the nature of X-Ray report, statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., etc., have also been produced during the course of trial.
4. The trial court, on the basis of evidence led in the matter, has evaluated the evidence on distinct aspects involved in the case. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the report of doctor has been perused in which he has found that bones of the right wrist and joints of the victim had already fused by then, which indicated that she was major. No contra evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the minority of the victim. The trial court, therefore, has come to conclusion that the victim was major. This finding of the trial court has not been shown to be erroneous or perverse and is based upon X-Ray report and other medical evidence on record. The view of the trial court on this aspect is a permissible view on such evidence.
5. From the evidence of the victim it has clearly come that she was aware that the accused at the time of incident was already married. The trial court, therefore, has doubted the victim's statement that it was on the false pretext of marriage that physical relations were formed. The victim being aware of marital status of the accused, could not have relied upon the promise of marriage. It has also, come in evidence that physical relations were formed by the victim with the accused for several months prior to lodging of the F.I.R., and it was only when the pregnancy became apparent that the F.I.R. was lodged. The medical evidence showed that victim was eight month pregnant instead of four months alleged in the F.I.R. The establishment of physical relations, therefore, was from the date much prior to the date disclosed by the victim. The trial court, on the basis of such evidence, has not found force in the case of the prosecution that it was on the false promise of marriage that the accused established physical relations with the victim. In the opinion of the Trial Judge voluntary relationship between the parties was permissible. It has also come in the evidence that by the stage of trial the victim had given birth to a male child and she was already married with someone else. The trial court, on the basis of evaluation of evidence led in the matter, has consequently, opined that the inference of voluntary physical relations between the two major individuals could not be ruled out. Though, this conclusion is challenged, but we are of the view that on the evidence so led in the matter by the prosecution, the view taken by the trial court is a permissible view once we find that the victim was major and had raised no grievance almost for about eight months while having physical relations with the accused. In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is clearly a permissible view.
6. Law is otherwise 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."
7. 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 :- 8.11.2024
Mustaqeem.
