State Of U.P. vs Suresh Singh S/O Prithviraj Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 37506 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. vs Suresh Singh S/O Prithviraj Singh on 14 November, 2024

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178937-DB
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 315 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Suresh Singh S/O Prithviraj Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

(Ref:- Order on Delay Condonation Application)

1. The delay of 83 days in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court and is otherwise not seriously opposed.

2. The delay condonation application is allowed.

(Ref:- Appeal)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 04.05.2024, passed by the court below in Session Trial Nos.175 of 2015 (State Vs. Suresh Singh) and 176 of 2015 (State Vs. Suresh Singh), arising out of Case Crime Nos.1177 of 2015 and 1178 of 2015, under Sections 376 & 506 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sumerpur, District-Hamirpur.

2. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that informant belongs to village Bada Kachhar and after getting his wife medically examined at Ghatampur was returning home, he came to the nearest station by passenger train on 14.07.2015 whereafter, he was proceeding on foot with his wife when accused came on a motorcycle. Accused offered to take informant's wife on his motorcycle along with the informant. As soon as he reached the place of Atik Maharaj, the accused by threatening them with a countrymade pistol committed rape upon his 28 years old wife.

3. On this allegation, FIR came to be registered under Section 376, 506 IPC against the accused. A 315 bore Tamancha along with live cartridge was recovered from the accused. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim in her statement supported the prosecution case. Ultimately, on conclusion of investigation a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused under Section 376, 506 IPC on which cognizance was taken and after the charges were framed against the accused trial proceeded since the accused denied his implication.

4. The informant has been produced during trial as PW-1 while victim is PW-2, Dr. Poonam Sachan who had medically examined the victim has been produced as PW-3, PW-4 to PW-6 are formal police witnesses. The aforesaid evidence was confronted to the accused who stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of previous dispute between the parties in respect of irrigation of agricultural land from the tubewell of the accused.

5. Trial court has evaluated the evidence of the prosecution and has come to the conclusion that prosecution version is not credible and reliable and consequently, the accused has been let off by granting him benefit of doubt.

6. Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the finding of trial court is contrary to the weight of evidence on record and consequently, it is erroneous and perverse.

7. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the material available on record.

8. The prosecution case is that the victim was taken by informant for her treatment to Ghatampur and the incident occurred while they were returning. No evidence however has been led by the prosecution in respect of treatment of victim at Ghatampur. The accused is labour of the informant and it transpires that there was some dispute between then with regard to use of water from the tubewell of the informant. The trial court has noticed that on the date of incident the victim was carrying pregnancy of nearly 7 months. The case of the prosecution has been doubted by the trial court inasmuch as the informant has admitted that he was returning from the railway station on foot along with his wife. He further admitted that the accused offered lift to both the informant and his wife on motorcycle so as to take them to the village. It is then alleged that on the way the accused on motorcycle, by extending threat of fire arm, he committed rape upon the victim. In the medical examination no external or internal injury of any kind has been informed. The medical examination was conducted on the very next day. The trial court has doubted the prosecution case after noticing the conduct of the informant that when he returned home he left place of occurrence and came back home. The informant made no efforts to wait for his wife or to take her with him. The wife allegedly returned home an hour later.

9. The fact that victim was carrying 7 months pregnancy has been relied upon to create a doubt inasmuch as the allegation that a neighbour in the presence of the husband would commit rape of wife, who was 7 months pregnant, is rather unusual. During investigation, DNA report has also been produced in which the accused has not been connected with the commissioning of offence. No independent person has otherwise come forward to support the prosecution case.

10. Since the enmity between the parties has otherwise not been doubted by the prosecution, the very prosecution case has been found feeble. The trial court has also doubted the prosecution case of accused offering lift to the informant and his wife when they had estranged relations between them. The place of occurrence is alleged to be Ashram where presence of other persons at about 8 PM in the evening would otherwise be expected. The evidence led in the matter has been carefully analyzed by the trial court and a doubt is raised regarding the prosecution case.

11. In view of inherent improbability of the prosecution case coupled with the admitted estranged relations between the parties the trial court has opined that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. By granting benefit of doubt to the accused the court of Sessions has acquitted the accused.

12. 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."

13. 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, thus do not find any good ground to entertain the present appeal. The prayer made by the State for grant of leave is refused. The appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.11.2024

S.A.