Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Shailendra Singh S/O Tezpal Singh on 19 September, 2022
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 43 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 577 of 2022 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Shailendra Singh S/O Tezpal Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
This State Appeal has been preferred against judgement and order dated 26.06.2022, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.15, Meerut in Session Trial No.663 of 2014, State vs. Shailendra Singh, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted under Sections 366, 376, 376G, 506 IPC.
It transpires that the first informant, who happens to be the father of the victim, lodged a first information report with the allegation that her daughter aged about 19 years, who is a student of B.A. final year, had gone to her institute in the morning where accused Shailendra and Nitin met her. These persons have enticed his daughter and took her in a car and are otherwise, armed. It is also alleged that these persons have committed rape upon the victim and after extending threats have left his daughter, who after coming back informed about the incident to family members. The investigation proceeded in the matter and after concluding the investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The proceedings were committed to the court of session where trial proceeded after the accused persons denied the charges made against them. The prosecution has adduced oral testimonies of PW-1 Satyaveer, PW-2 Victim, PW-3 Dr. Madhu Agrawal, PW-4 Sukhveer Singh, PW-5 Puranjay Kumar, PW-6 H.M. Mangeram and PW-7 Sub Inspector Munna Babu.
The victim PW-2 has been examined, who stated that the accused persons were known to her and as the college time had not started the accused persons asked the victim to come with them to village Agheda, which is also the Sasural of her elder sister. It is then stated that when she refused to come with them she was threatened with a country made pistol (Tamancha). The victim has been cross-examined and the court below upon evaluation of her statement has found that there are major contradictions in her stand from what has been disclosed in FIR. During course of the trial the abduction has been shown to have been done by motorcycle as against abduction by car initially, pleaded. The trial court has noticed that site plan has been prepared on the pointing out of the first informant instead of victim, which is a material irregularity. The trial court has observed that if the victim had been taken on a motorcycle it is difficult to understand as to why she has not made any protest and upon evaluation of evidence the story of abduction is not found to be established during the course of trial. It has also been observed that the medical examination of the victim does not support the plea of rape inasmuch as no injuries have been found and the forensic report has also not been produced. It is also observed that the victim had known the accused Nitin for long, who later committed suicide. The place of occurrence otherwise has not been established. In such circumstances, the trial court upon evaluation of evidence has found the prosecution to have failed in establishing the guilt of accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
We have heard learned A.G.A., who has taken us through the judgement and the material of the present case in order to submit that the judgement of the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record and that there are material irregularities in it but we do not find that such argument is substantiated on facts inasmuch as the evaluation of evidence by the trial court is not shown to be perverse or erroneous. The contradictions in the statement of victim; the fact that place of occurrence has not been specified; the site plan otherwise has been prepared on the information of first informant instead of victim; the fact that no injury is shown to exist on private parts of the victim which may support the plea of rape; and the forensic report otherwise has not been produced to connect the accused with the crime. The trial court in para 49 of the judgement has observed that there are no injuries on the victim and the doctor was also not informed of rape having been committed upon her and, therefore, no definite opinion about rape could be given. The blood found on the victim otherwise on account of periods of victim and no material otherwise has been placed which may support the plea of rape in the medical examination.
Since we find that the view taken by the trial court is clearly permissible as it is not shown to be perverse or erroneous, we decline the application moved by the State for grant of leave to prefer this appeal. Leave is, accordingly, refused and consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2022 Ashok Kr.