Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Rahul And 4 Ors. on 30 October, 2019
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 45 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 430 of 2019 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Rahul And 4 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Shri Paritosh Shukla, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 3 Gaurav and respondent no. 4 Rajjan @ Rajendra Singh; the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned AGA for the State and Shri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
3. This Government Appeal has been filed with application for leave to file appeal under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgement and order dated 06.06.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.-1, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 932 of 2011 (State Vs. Rahul and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2011, under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Gonda, District Aligarh by which the opposite parties Rahul, Rajjan @ Rajendra Singh, Chhotu and Gaurav have been acquitted for the offence under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and opposite party Yogesh has been acquitted for the offence under sections 363, 366 IPC.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgement and order of the acquittal, this appeal has been filed by the State challenging the impugned judgement and order on the ground that the impugned judgement is against the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time. The case of the prosecution was fully established beyond shadow of doubt and therefore, the acquittal is not logical and legally justified. The learned trial court did not assess the evidence on record in a proper way. The accused persons were liable to be convicted and sentenced for the said offence and therefore, the impugned judgement of acquittal is liable to be set aside. Hence, leave to appeal may be permitted.
5. We have perused the impugned judgement and lower court record. It appears that the said case was initiated on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 10.05.2011 in which it was alleged that the accused persons kidnapped the victim and they were seen by Sakuntala and Chaman Devi, when they were taking her. The informant tried to search the victim but he could not get the victim and therefore, a written report was given in the concerned police station naming all the five accused persons and on the basis of report, the offence under sections 363, 366 was registered against them. During investigation the victim was recovered and on the basis of her statement the offence under section 376 IPC was also added. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Rahul. Other accused persons were summoned by the court under section 319 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed and the accused persons were tried by the learned trial court for the aforesaid offence.
6. The prosecution examined 4 fact witnesses P.W.-1 Bobby, P.W.-2 Kavita, P.W.-3 Sakuntala and P.W.-4 Chaman Devi. P.W.-5 Dr. Beena Saxena, P.W.-6 H.C. Rameshwar Dayal and P.W.-7 S.I. Rajveer Singh were also examined as formal witnesses.
7. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that they have been falsely implicated because of political and group rivalry. After due consideration of the evidence on record the impugned judgement of acquittal was passed by the learned trial court.
8. The victim has been examined as P.W.-2 and during her cross-examination she has stated that the accused persons Rajjan, Chhotu, Gaurav, Vipin and Yogesh did not committ rape with her and Rajjan, Chhotu and Gaurav were not present there, they did not even threaten her. She has further stated that other two accused Yogesh and Vipin did not meet her on the date of incident nor accused Yogesh gave her to inhale intoxicated substance. Thus she has totally denied the version of prosecution and the incident of kidnapping and rape by the accused persons. Referring her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she gave statement before the Magistrate only on the insistence of the village persons and before the court she is giving her voluntary and true statement. Thus, the statement of the victim has been contrary and in the complete denial of the prosecution version.
9. The four accused persons except Rahul were summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. and against them she has not stated any thing by which the prosecution versions can be supported. So far as accused Rahul is concerned against whom the police had submitted charge-sheet, the learned trial court has pointed out that in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she did not even name accused Rahul and in her examination-in-chief also she did not say any thing against him. But after the four accused persons were summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. and she was re-examined, then she stated about accused Rahul that he committed rape with her. Learned trial court, considering the facts and evidence on record, very rightly concluded that the statement of victim in respect of Rahul was very fluctuating and contradictory. Learned trial court found the whole case doubtful and therefore, all the accused persons were accordingly acquitted.
10. The impugned judgement and order is based on logical and legal appreciation of the evidence on record and we find no perversity and illegality in the judgement. No fruitful purpose would be served if the leave to appeal is allowed as there is no believable evidence on record on the basis of which any otherwise conclusion against the opposite party can be reached.
12. In view of the above, the application for leave to appeal has got no force and is rejected.
13. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
14. Office is directed to return the lower court record to the court below alongwith a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.10.2019 Bhanu