State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Bailistar Alias Rizwan Ahmad And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10439 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Bailistar Alias Rizwan Ahmad And ... on 11 September, 2025

Author: Rajnish Kumar

Bench: Rajnish Kumar, Rajeev Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:56476-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 21 of 2025   
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Bailistar Alias Rizwan Ahmad And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
  
 
   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 10
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.  

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. We have heard learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/appellant and have also perused the record available before us.

2. By means of the present appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act, the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 10024 of 2013 (State Vs. Bailister @ Rizwan Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2012 under Sections 376, 323, 458 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baskhari, District- Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent, namely, Bailistar alias Rizwan Ahmad for the offenses under Sections 376, 323, 458 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

3. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged by means of the order dated 03.04.2012 passed by learned Magistrate on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. As per the prosecution case, on 30.12.2011 at about 6 pm, wife of the informant of the present case was alone at her house and cooking food, at that time, the accused/respondent no.1 entered into the house armed with country-made pistol, caught her hand and tried to commit rape with her; when the victim objected, she was slammed and was beaten with kicks and punches; meanwhile, when the victim ran outside the house making noise, the accused chased her. It is also alleged therein that upon the victim's alarm, as the mother and brother of the informant alongwith other villagers reached at the spot, the accused started abusing them by saying caste related words and warned that in case any information is given to the police, all the family members would be eliminated.

It has further been submitted that the investigation of Case Crime No. 69 of 2012 under Sections 376, 323, 458 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baskhari, District- Ambedkar Nagar was conducted by the Circle Officer. During the course of investigations, the statements of the informant, victim and Head Constable- Salik Ram were recorded and the site plan was also prepared. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned Magistrate after taking cognizance on 09.05.2013 and the charge was framed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar on 11.09.2013 under Sections 450, 376/511 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. As the respondent no.1 denied the charges and requested for trial, the trial was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 and it was proceeded.

4. The prosecution has placed four witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 - informant, P.W.-2 - victim, P.W.-3 - Head Constable- Salik Ram and P.W.-4 - Superintendent of Police/Investigating Officer, namely, Shravan Kumar Singh. The prosecution has relied on five documentary evidence duly proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. After the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the respondent no.1 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the prosecution has also placed defense witnesses, i.e., D.W.-1 - Akeel and D.W.-2 - Nisar Ahmad.

5. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that learned trial Court failed to consider the testimony of the victim who categorically stated that the F.I.R. was lodged by her husband on the version narrated by her to the family members. The victim has deposed in her statement that when she was alone at her home, the accused entered into her house and forcefully inserted his genital part into her vagina and kept it for half an hour. Thus, the submission is that the learned trial Court wrongly acquitted the respondent no.1, hence, indulgence of this Court is required and application for leave to appeal is liable to be allowed by summoning the respondent no.1.

6. Considering the submissions of learned A.G.A. and perusing the impugned judgement and grounds taken in the application for leave to appeal, it is evident that as per the prosecution case, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the husband of the victim, which was allowed and in lieu of which, F.I.R. was lodged on 03.04.2012 as Case Crime No. 69 of 2012 u/s 452, 376, 511, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and chik was prepared by Head Constable- Salik Ram who was examined as P.W.-3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. given by P.W.-1 - Tilloo (husband of the victim/informant), which was lodged on the narration of the victim that on 30.12.2011 about 6 pm, the victim was alone and cooking food in the house, at that time, the respondent no.1 entered into her house armed with country-made pistol, caught her hand and tried to commit rape with her. It is further alleged therein that when the victim raised alarm, the accused slammed her and started beating her with kicks and punches and when the victim ran outside the house making noise, the accused chased her; on her alarm, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law alongwith others reached at the spot, then the respondent no.1 started abusing her by giving life threat.

7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is apparent that the P.W.-3 - retired Head Constable- Salik Ram proved the chik F.I.R.. The P.W.-1 - informant also proved the complaint and developed a case of rape, which was not stated in the F.I.R.. It is admitted by the P.W.-2 - victim that that she narrated the incident to her husband- P.W.-1, mother-in-law and others. The P.W.-2 made allegations of rape in her deposition before the Court concerned stating therein that the respondent no.1 came to her house, gave her a lot of beatings, forcibly inserted his genital part into her vagina and kept it there for about half an hour. On the other hand, the victim also admitted that she had not taken any medical aid after the incident of rape. In the victim's cross-examination, she stated that on the next day of the incident, she went to police station, where her report was lodged and Circle Officer interrogated her and on that day, a Sub Inspector visited the place of incident. In her examination, she also stated that the respondent no.1 earlier also visited her house and commit wrong with her, but she never made any compliant to her family members. In the respondent no.1's statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that there was a money dispute between the parties and as the informant was not returning the money, some quarrel was taken place between them, due to which, false prosecution was initiated. The defense witnesses, i.e., D.W.-1 - Akeel and D.W.-2 - Nisar Ahmad were also examined before the trial Court and Akeel stated that on 30.12.2011, a quarrel was taken place between the informant and the respondent no.1.

8. Evidently, the entire prosecution story reveals that the F.I.R. was lodged on the version narrated by the victim to her husband and there is no allegation of rape in the said F.I.R.. However, a case was developed by the victim who admitted that prior to the incident, the applicant was frequently visiting her house and doing wrong with her, but she never informed about the same to her family members. It is also evident that prior to lodging of the F.I.R., a complaint was made to the police and inquiry was conducted, in which, it was found that there was a money dispute between the parties, and no medical aid was taken by the victim after the incident of rape as well as beatings.

9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent no.1.

10. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence and 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 the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

11. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondent herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

12. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

13. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed.

(Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

September 11, 2025

Arpan