Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Deepak Singh S/O Om Prakash Singh on 21 March, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 175 of 2023 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Deepak Singh S/O Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2022, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Mau, in Sessions Trial No.550 of 2020 (State Vs. Deepak Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.615 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau.
As per the prosecution case the victim lodged a report stating that she is the resident of district Mau and her marital life is being destroyed by the accused who is a resident of her village and has been harassing her on telephone and also threatening her husband. Two reports were lodged by the husband of the victim at Police Station Hazratganj being NCR No. 109 of 2019, under Section 507 IPC and NCR No. 118 of 2019, under Section 504 and 507 IPC. Ultimately victim has lodged a report in respect of the incident occurring in the year 2016 by lodging the FIR at Mau on 22.7.2020. The FIR is under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC. On the basis of investigation conducted in the matter a chargesheet was submitted against the accused whereafter the trial proceeded.
The victim has appeared as PW-1 and has stated that the accused used to harass her even prior to her marriage and had also came to her house but the matter was not reported as her marriage was already fixed. About three years after the marriage the accused somehow managed her telephone number and called her couple of times between 11-12 in the night. He called the victim to his place as he allegedly wanted to apologies. The victim came to the house of the accused where she was subjected to sexual assault. It is also alleged that certain video etc. had been prepared by the accused and also threatened the victim that she would be defamed in the society.
Although specific allegation is made with regard to preparation of obscene video of the victim but neither any such video has been produced before the court nor was it furnished to the Investigating Officer. The trial court on the basis of statement of victim has come to the conclusion that this was at best a case of consensual relationship, inasmuch as, the alleged incident of the year 2016 has not been reported to anyone. The victim otherwise was a major. The act of victim going to the house of the accused has also been treated to be a wilful act on part of the victim. The victim otherwise refused her medical examination and therefore the version with regard to sexual assault could find no corroboration from the medical evidence. The fact that for several years the incident went unreported and the plea that only after 3-4 years of marriage the incident has been reported is viewed with suspicion by the trial court. The defence of the accused has also been taken into consideration, according to which the victim wanted to marry the accused and their relationship was otherwise consensual. He has further stated that after accused got married with someone else on 12th March, 2020 that a false report has been lodged by the victim against the accused.
On the basis of evaluation of evidence so led in the matter, the trial court has come to the conclusion that there are material improvement in the statement of victim from what was disclosed by her earlier during her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that correct facts have been withheld by the victim. It has also been opined by the court below that the victim being a major, she was expected to be aware of the consequences of her acts and having voluntarily visited the accused her subsequent act of protest or harassment by the accused has been disbelieved. The view taken in the judgment of acquittal by the court below is clearly a permissible view, on the basis of evidence led in the matter, and just because a different view could be taken would ordinarily not be a ground for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal.
In such circumstances and for the reasons recorded above we find that neither any triable issue is raised before us in this appeal nor any perversity is shown, 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 :- 21.3.2023 Ranjeet Sahu