Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Nandlal And Another on 13 October, 2025
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 144 of 2025
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
..Applicants(s)
Versus
Nandlal And Another
..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
G.A.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Court No. -10
HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.
C.M.A. No.1 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay)
1. Heard learned A.G.A. for State/appellant and perused the records.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Office has reported a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal.
4. On due consideration of the submissions and the grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the same is sufficient to condone the delay.
5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Order on C.M.C. No.144/378D/2025
6. This is an application under Section 378(3) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC)/419(3) of BNSS for leave to appeal.
7. By means of the present application, the leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.01.2025 passed in Session Trial No.55/2010, under Sections 363, 366, 323, 342 and 376 IPC and Session Trial No.11/2012, under Sections 363/34, 366A/34, 323/34 and 342 IPC, both arising out of Case Crime No.615/2009, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi, by means of which the accused Nand Lal and Siddh Narayan respectively have been acquitted.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has been passed by the learned trial court without considering the evidence and material on record, in an illegal manner. He further submits that the victim, who appeared as PW-3, supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the evidence before the trial court, which was corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside, therefore, the leave to appeal may be granted and the appeal may be heard and decided on merit.
9. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant- Raj Narayan s/o Matapher, r/o Katra Hulasi, Police Station Amethi Kotwali, District Sultanpur, lodged a report on 27.07.2009 at Police Station- Amethi Kotwali with the allegation that in the night of 9/10.07.2009, at about 11:00 P.M., the daughter of the complainant, namely, Subadhra, aged about 17 years, had been allured by Nand Lal, who took her to the house of Siddh Narayan, where Shyam Narayan and his relative Shiv Bahadur were already present. They, in collusion with each other, took his daughter to Gauriganj Road through Barahmasi. They were seen by Rajendra Prasad of the village, who informed his wife at his house. The wife of the complainant then informed him telephonically in Delhi. Upon returning, the complainant searched her daughter Subadhra but she could not be traced, therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged.
10. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the court of session, being session trial. The charge against the accused Nand Lal was framed on 03.03.2010, under Sections 363, 366, 323, 342, 376 IPC and the charge against the accused Siddh Narayan and Shiv Bahadur was framed on 22.12.2023 under Sections 363/34, 366A/34, 323/34 and 342 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed for trial, therefore, the trial held in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure.
11. By means of the order dated 10.09.2013, the Session Trial No.55/2010 and Session Trial No.11/2012 were consolidated and the evidence of all witnesses was recorded in Session Trial No.55/2010.
12. The prosecution examined Raj Narayan(complainant) as P.W.1, Badka (mother of the victim) as P.W.2, Subadhra (victim) as P.W.3, Dr. Urmila Chaudhary as P.W.4, Vinay Kumar Jaiswal (Pharmacist) as P.W.5 and Head Constable- Jai Ram as P.W.6 on behalf of the prosecution.
13. The prosecution also placed on record and proved the documentary evidence, i.e. the Written Tehrir as Ext.Ka-1, Medical Report as Ext.Ka-2, Supplementary report as Ext.Ka-3, C.M.O. Report of age determination as Ext.Ka-4, Pathological Report as Ext. Ka-5, certified photostat copy of Medico Legal Register as Ext. Ka-6, Site Plan as Ext.Ka-7, Charge Sheet as Ext.Ka-8 and 9 and Chik F.I.R. dated 31.5.2024 as Ext.Ka-10, G.D. as Ext.Ka-11 and Fard Baramadagi as Ext. Ka-12.
14. After evidence of the prosecution, statements of the accused Nand Lal, Siddh Narayan and Shiv Bahadur under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 06.08.2024. In the said statement, the accuseds stated that they have wrongly been implicated in the case, on account of enmity and the wrong evidence has been adduced.
15. The accused- Shiv Bahadur died during pendency of the trial, therefore, the trial against him was abated by means of the order dated 11.12.2024.
16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material on record, learned trial court acquitted the opposite party nos.1 and 2, namely, Nand Lal and Siddh Nararyan by means of the impugned judgment and order, hence, this appeal has been filed.
17. We have considered the submissions of learned AGA/appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order.
18. The complainant P.W.1- Raj Narayan stated in his evidence that he was illiterate and can only sign. He had gone to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. alongwith Ashok Kumar Mishra. The F.I.R. was got written by him by dictating to Shri Kalaka Nath Mishra, Advocate on 27.07.2009. He lodged the report only against Nand Lal. The names of Siddh Narayan, Shyam Narayan and Shiv Narayan were not mentioned in the F.I.R., because they were not involved in abduction of his daughter. He admitted that he had lodged the F.I.R. after 20 days of the date of incident, on the information given by his wife Badka, as admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.2. The alleged incident is of 9/10.07.2009 at about 11:00 P.M. and he got the information on 10.07.2009 and proceeded from Delhi on 12.07.2009. Thereafter, he searched for his daughter but when he could not search her, then he lodged the F.I.R. after about 14-15 days. Thus, he is not an eye witness and lodged the F.I.R. with delay after coming from Delhi after one day of information.
19. P.W.2 Badka, stated in his evidence, that her daughter Subadhra, aged about 17 years was allured by Nand Lal, who took her to the house of Shyam Lal, where her relative Shiv Bahadur was also present. They took her from Barahmasi Road through Gauriganj. She admitted that her husband was in Delhi at the time of incident. He had lodged the F.I.R. after 3-4 days, after coming from Delhi. The girl was recovered from Raebareli. She admitted in her evidence that she had not seen anybody taking her daughter with him. She also stated that she had not given any statement to the Inspector that her daughter Subadhra, aged about 17 years, was allured by Nand Lal and taken to the house of Shyam Lal, where Shyam Lal and her relative Shiv Bahadur were also present. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. The F.I.R. was lodged stating therein that Rajendra Prasad of village had seen that Nand Lal had allured the daughter of the complainant and took her to the house of Siddh Narayan Yadav, where Shyam Lal Yadav and his relative Shiv Bahadur were present and he told it after coming to her but Rajendra Prasad has not been produced in evidence before court. Thus, the source of information could not be proved and it raises the question on the prosecution story itself. There is also contradiction in evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 about the duration in lodging F.I.R. by P.W.-1 after coming from Delhi.
20. The victim Subadhra appeared as P.W.3. She stated that the incident occurred approximately two years and three months ago. The incident is of 11:00 P.M. She went to sing at a blacksmith's residence in her neighbourhood at around 10:00 P.M. She was returning alone at 11:00 P.M. On the way, she met the accused, Nandlal, who offered her sweets to eat. She ate the sweets and felt dizzy. It was summer. She was sitting on the train. When she regained consciousness, she saw Nandlal sitting with her. She asked him where he was taking her. Nandlal said, 'Your father is ill in Delhi and we are going to see him.' Nandlal took her to Punjab and kept her in a room. He forcibly began to undress her and when she refused, he had beaten her and forcibly undressed her. She understands the meaning of 'bad acts'. Nandlal inserted his urinary tract into my urinary tract. Nandlal kept her in Punjab for 2-3 days and continued to do bad things. When Nandlal ran out of money, he sold her jewellery (anklets and earrings). Later, he brought her to Raebareli. She cannot tell as to whether it was a city or a village. A month later, her father and grand-mother found her with Nandlal at Gangaganj Railway Station, Raebareli. Ajay Mishra and Ambika Bajpai from her village were also found there. She and Nandlal were arrested and brought to Amethi Police Station. On the same day, the inspector took her statement. After that, she was taken to the District Women's Hospital, Sultanpur, accompanied by female police personnels, for medical examination. After that, she was taken to court and her statement was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
21. The victim stated in her cross-examination that only accused Nand Lal had allured her and Siddh Narayan, Shyam Narayan and Shiv Bahadur did not allure her. In regard to the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that the said statement was given by her under pressure of some person but she did not know his name. The victim also stated that Nand Lal was residing 5-6 house back from her house. He used to come to her house and there was also closeness with Nand Lal and his family. Nand Lal also used to work at her home. She further stated that Nand Lal had met her in the lane on the back of his house. When she regained consciousness in the train, she asked him as to where she was being taken, then Nand Lal stated that her father is ill in Delhi and they are going there. However, he took her to Punjab, where he forcibly raped her. It has also been stated by her that when Nand Lal had no money, he also sold her jewellery and thereafter they came from Punjab to Raebareli.
22. As per medical report, no injury has been found on the private parts of the victim. The victim was major at the time of incident and as per her statement, she had travelled alongwith accused Nand Lal to Punjab and remained there. She does not know as to what age has been written in court marriage, therefore, she also does not deny marriage. Thereafter, she came back to Raebareli but at no occasion she raised any voice and complained to anybody. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim was not got corroborated/contradicted before the trial court. Accordingly, statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also not got proved.
23. P.W.4- Dr. Urmila Chaudhary proved the medical report. She stated that age of the victim was 18 years at the time of incident and there may be two years difference on either side and according to her, her age might be 20 years at the time of incident. Thus, the victim has been found major at the time of alleged incident.
24. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and material on record, has recorded the finding to this effect in paragraph 23, which is extracted hereinbelow:-
"पत्रावली में उपलब्ध पीड़िता की चिकित्सीय आख्या प्रदर्श क-4 के आधार पर जिसे साक्षी संख्या-4 डाक्टर उर्मिला चौधरी ने सिद्ध किया है, घटना के समय पीड़िता की आयु 18 वर्ष दर्शायी गयी है जिसमें दो वर्ष का अन्तर दोनों तरफ हो सकता है और चिकित्साधिकारी के अनुसार घटना के समय पीडिता की आयु 20 वर्ष हो सकती है। इस पृष्ठभूमि में अभियोजन की कहानी का पत्रावली में उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के आकलन करने पर पीडिता के बयान से बखूबी स्पष्ट होता है कि 'नंदलाल का घर मेरे घर के 5-6 घर पीछे है। नंदलाल मेरे घर पहले से आता जाता था। नंदलाल से मेरे घर को काफी घनिष्ठता थी। नंदलाल मेरे घर काम भी कर दिया करता था। मेरे घर के पीछे गली में नंदलाल मुझको मिला था।... ट्रेन पर मुझे होश आया था। नंदलाल मुझे पंजाब ले गये थे।' पीड़िता ने अपने सम्परीक्षा में कहा है कि नंदलाल ने कहा कि तुम्हारे पिता दिल्ली में बीमार है जिनके पास जा रहे है। अगर पिता के पास पीड़िता को नंदलाल नहीं ले गया तब उसने आपत्ति क्यों नहीं प्रगट की? पंजाब में 2-3 दिन रखकर मारपीट एवं जबरन बलात्कार किया तब क्यों नहीं शोर शराबा करके आपत्ति प्रगट की गयी? जेवर, पायल एवं झुमकी बेचने पर क्यों नहीं आपत्ति प्रगट की गयी? पंजाब से रायबरेली आने पर क्यों नहीं आपत्ति प्रगट की गयी? पीड़िता की चिकित्सीय आख्या प्रदर्श क-2 के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट विदित है कि पीड़िता के प्राइवेट पार्ट में कोई जाहिरा चोट के निशान नहीं पाये गये। चिकित्साधिकारी उर्मिला चौधरी साक्षी संख्या-4 ने अपनें साक्ष्य में कहा है कि पीड़िता का हाइमन पुराना फटा हुआ एवं भरा हुआ था एवं बलात्कार के सम्बन्ध में निश्चित राय व्यक्त नहीं की गयी। अतः साक्ष्य से स्पष्ट होता है कि घटना के समय पीड़िता की आयु 18-20 वर्ष के बीच की थी। अभियुक्त नंदलाल का पीड़िता के घर घटना के पूर्व से आना जाना था और उनके मध्य काफी घनिष्ठता थी क्योंकि वह पीड़िता के घर का काम भी करता था। ऐसी स्थिति में पीड़िता का नन्दलाल के प्रति उपरोक्त आचरण स्वेच्छा से जाने का सिद्ध होता है न की अभियोजन के कथनानुसार बहला फुसलाकर भगाये जाने एवं जबरदस्ती बलात्कार करने का। अतः अभियोजन का कथन अभियुक्त नन्दलाल के विरूद्ध भी सिद्ध नहीं होता है।"
25. In view of above, the learned trial court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the trial court.
26. The Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh and Others versus State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529, has held that before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained, which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. The relevant paragraphs 24 and 26 are extracted hereinbelow:-
24. We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides. No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal, is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible.
25. x x x x x
26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 and the following passage therefrom needs to be extracted: (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13)
12. The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction, introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 CrPC. This is an indication that appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been introduced as an additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts.
13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law. Upon examination of the evidence before it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law."
27. The Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
28. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has rightly and in accordance with law been passed considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court and nothing could be pointed out, on the basis of which a contrary view is possible, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court and no case for grant of leave to file the appeal is made out. The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
October 13, 2025
Akanksha/Saurabh/-
