Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Vishal Saini S/O Rakesh on 20 March, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 112 of 2023 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Vishal Saini S/O Rakesh Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the court.
Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned.
This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 04.04.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Meerut in Session Trial No. 88 of 2018 (State Vs. Vishal Saini), arising out of Case Crime No. 616 of 2017, under Sections 323, 376, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut.
The informant is the victim in the present case who has made a written report, as per which she has passed class-XII and the accused, who was residing in the same lane had demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for arranging a job in bank. Rs. 50,000/- was given to the accused, who kept assuring her that job would be arranged. On such pretext, the victim was sexually assaulted on several occasions. On 06.09.2017 at about 12:30, the victim was taken to bus stand and he started forcibly taking her, on which objection was raised whereafter the accused physically assaulted her. The informant then reached the police station but the FIR was not lodged. It was in such circumstances, a complaint was made to S.S.P., Meerut and on his instructions/directions case crime no. 616 of 2017 was registered under sections 323, 376, 420, 506 I.P.C. The investigation concluded with the submission of a charge-sheet against the accused.
The court of session framed charges under the aforesaid sections against the accused who denied his implication and demanded trial.
During the course of trial, the victim has appeared as PW-1 while his father has appeared as PW-2. The two doctors who have examined the victim produced as PW-3 and PW-4. Other prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses.
During the course of trial, it was also noticed that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.PC., wherein also she has supported the prosecution case.
The prosecutrix has alleged that the accused lived in the same lane and had demanded Rs. 1 lakh from her for arranging a job. Rs. 50,000/- allegedly was given by the victim to the accused while he was alone. This amount was given in two installments of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-. As per the victim, none was present when this amount was given to accused. PW-2 who happens to be the father of the victim states that the accused came to his house and the amount was given by him in presence of others. Material inconsistency in the stand of the two witnesses of fact has thus been noticed by the trial court. So far as the date, time and place of making this demand is concerned, no specific evidence has been led by any of the prosecution witnesses.
The victim has been medically examined, in which no external or internal injuries have been found on her. The victim otherwise is major. The FSL report was otherwise produced to substantiate the alleged commissioning of offence.
The trial court therefore has opined that no independent corroboration of sexual assault finds place in the facts of the case in the form of opinion of the doctor or FSL report. The trial court has also noticed that the victim travelled with the accused by public transport and crossed various police stations without either making any complaint or raising an alarm.
Upon evaluation of evidence so led, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the accused on the basis of evidence led in the matter. Material contradictions in the stand of the prosecution witnesses and also the fact that such accusation was otherwise not corroborated has formed the basis for the court's opinion in that regard. Benefit of doubt accordingly has been given to the accused, who has been acquitted.
Learned A.G.A. has taken us through the judgment of the court below in order to show inconsistency therein but we find no such inconsistency or perversity in the judgment of the court below.
We have carefully examined the judgment of the court below and upon its examination we find that the view taken by the court below is clearly a permissible view, in the facts of the case, 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, 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 :- 20.3.2023 Shafique